02 Coeliac Disease

Issue date: May 2009
Coeliac disease
Recognition and assessment of coeliac
disease
NICE clinical guideline 86

Developed by the Centre for Clinical Practice at NICE
NICE clinical guideline 86
Coeliac disease: recognition and assessment of coeliac disease
Ordering information
You can download the following documents from www.nice.org.uk/CG86
• The full guideline (this document) – all the recommendations, details of how
they were developed, and reviews of the evidence they were based on.
• A quick reference guide – a summary of the recommendations for
healthcare professionals.
• ‘Understanding NICE guidance’ – a summary for patients and carers.
For printed copies of the quick reference guide or ‘Understanding NICE

guidance’, phone NICE publications on 0845 003 7783 or email
publications@nice.org.uk and quote:
• N1859 (quick reference guide)
• N1860 (‘Understanding NICE guidance’).
NICE clinical guidelines are recommendations about the treatment and care of
people with specific diseases and conditions in the NHS in England and
Wales.
This guidance represents the view of NICE, which was arrived at after careful
consideration of the evidence available. Healthcare professionals are
expected to take it fully into account when exercising their clinical judgement.
However, the guidance does not override the individual responsibility of
healthcare professionals to make decisions appropriate to the circumstances
of the individual patient, in consultation with the patient and/or guardian or
carer, and informed by the summary of product characteristics of any drugs
they are considering.
Implementation of this guidance is the responsibility of local commissioners

and/or providers. Commissioners and providers are reminded that it is their
responsibility to implement the guidance, in their local context, in light of their
duties to avoid unlawful discrimination and to have regard to promoting
equality of opportunity. Nothing in this guidance should be interpreted in a way
that would be inconsistent with compliance with those duties.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

MidCity Place
71 High Holborn
London WC1V 6NA
www.nice.org.uk
© National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2009. All rights reserved. This material
may be freely reproduced for educational and not-for-profit purposes. No reproduction by or
for commercial organisations, or for commercial purposes, is allowed without the express
written permission of NICE.
Contents
Disclaimer ....................................................................................................... 4
Foreword ........................................................................................................ 5
Patient-centred care ...................................................................................... 7
1 Summary .................................................................................................. 9
1.1 Recommendations ............................................................................. 9
1.2 Care pathway .................................................................................. 14
1.3 Overview.......................................................................................... 18
2 Evidence review .................................................................................... 20
2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 20
2.2 Prevalence of coeliac disease ......................................................... 21
2.3 The possible long-term consequences of undiagnosed coeliac
disease ........................................................................................... 23
2.4 Signs and symptoms of coeliac disease and coexisting conditions
with coeliac disease ......................................................................... 26
2.5 Serological tests in the diagnostic process for coeliac disease ....... 37
2.6 Research recommendations ............................................................ 59
3 References, glossary and abbreviations ............................................. 61
3.1 References ...................................................................................... 61
3.2 Glossary .......................................................................................... 71
3.3 Abbreviations ................................................................................... 74
4 Methods.................................................................................................. 74
4.1 Aim and scope of the guideline ........................................................ 74
4.2 Development methods ..................................................................... 74
5 Contributors........................................................................................... 79
5.1 The Guideline Development Group ................................................. 79
5.2 Declarations ..................................................................................... 86
The appendices are available as separate files.

Appendix 6.1 Scope
Appendix 6.2 Key clinical questions and protocols
Appendix 6.3 ROC curves and forest plots
Appendix 6.4 Search strategies
Appendix 6.5 Health economics evidence and evidence tables
Appendix 6.6 Evidence tables
NICE clinical guideline 86 Coeliac disease 3

Disclaimer
NICE clinical guidelines are recommendations about the treatment and care of
people with specific diseases and conditions in the NHS in England and
Wales.
This guidance represents the view of NICE, which was arrived at after careful
consideration of the evidence available. Healthcare professionals are
expected to take it fully into account when exercising their clinical judgement.
However, the guidance does not override the individual responsibility of
healthcare professionals to make decisions appropriate to the circumstances
of the individual patient, in consultation with the patient and/or guardian or
carer, and informed by the summary of product characteristics of any drugs
they are considering.
Implementation of this guidance is the responsibility of local commissioners

and/or providers. Commissioners and providers are reminded that it is their
responsibility to implement the guidance, in their local context, in light of their
duties to avoid unlawful discrimination and to have regard to promoting
equality of opportunity. Nothing in this guidance should be interpreted in a way
that would be inconsistent with compliance with those duties.

Foreword
Coeliac disease is believed to be present in up to 1 in 100 of the population
although only about 10–15% of people with the condition are clinically
diagnosed. Many of the remainder may be well, but a significant minority will
have chronic problems such as lethargy, gastrointestinal symptoms, or the
effects of anaemia. These result in chronic ill health and often extensive
medical investigation without a definite diagnosis.
Because coeliac disease can be very effectively treated with a gluten-free diet
it is important to identify people with the undiagnosed disease so as to provide
satisfactory individual treatment and also to improve the overall health of the
community.
To improve the recognition of coeliac disease and to increase the number of

people diagnosed with the condition, the Department of Health asked NICE to
produce a short clinical guideline about how the disease should be recognised
and which people should be assessed for the disease.
The Guideline Development Group (GDG) comprised experts in both adult

and paediatric gastroenterology from primary and secondary care, dietitians,
patient members and a clinical immunologist. It was supported by the NICE
Short Clinical Guidelines Technical Team.
The GDG considered systematically identified and reviewed evidence

concerning the recognition of coeliac disease. A new health economic model
was also developed to consider the cost effectiveness of serological tests for
coeliac disease.
The guideline gives recommendations about the clinical signs, symptoms and
types of presentation or conditions that should alert practitioners to consider
the presence of coeliac disease, and suggests a scheme of investigation to
follow when making the diagnosis. It is expected that implementation of the
guideline recommendations will lead to many new cases being diagnosed and
much ill health being alleviated.

The GDG hopes that this guideline will be sufficiently clear and non-
contentious that its implementation will be routine both in secondary care and
in primary care, where most patients with coeliac disease will present.
Professor Peter D Howdle

Chair, Guideline Development Group

Patient-centred care
This guideline offers best practice advice on the recognition and assessment
of coeliac disease and the care of children and adults who are undergoing the
diagnostic process for coeliac disease.
This diagnostic process should take into account patients’ needs and
preferences. People with symptoms and/or signs suggestive of coeliac
disease should have the opportunity to make informed decisions, in
partnership with their healthcare professionals. If patients do not have the
capacity to make decisions, healthcare professionals should follow the
Department of Health (2001) guidelines – ‘Reference guide to consent for
examination or treatment’ (available from www.dh.gov.uk). Healthcare
professionals should also follow a code of practice accompanying the Mental
Capacity Act (summary available from www.publicguardian.gov.uk).
If the patient is under 16, healthcare professionals should follow guidelines in

‘Seeking consent: working with children’ (available from www.dh.gov.uk).
Good communication between healthcare professionals and patients is

essential. It should be supported by evidence-based written information
tailored to the patient’s needs. Diagnosis, treatment and care, and the
information patients are given about it, should be culturally appropriate. It
should also be accessible to people with additional needs such as physical,
sensory or learning disabilities, and to people who do not speak or read
English.
If the patient agrees, families and carers should have the opportunity to be
involved in decisions about diagnosis, treatment and care.
Families and carers should also be given the information and support they
need.
Care of young people in transition between paediatric and adult services

should be planned and managed according to the best practice guidance

described in ‘Transition: getting it right for young people’ (available from
www.dh.gov.uk).
Adult and paediatric healthcare teams should work jointly to provide

assessment and services to young people with coeliac disease. Diagnosis
and management should be reviewed throughout the transition process, and
there should be clarity about who is the lead clinician to ensure continuity of
care.

1 Summary
1.1 Recommendations
When to offer testing
1.1.1 Offer serological testing for coeliac disease to children and adults
with any of the following signs and symptoms:
• chronic or intermittent diarrhoea

• failure to thrive or faltering growth (in children)
• persistent or unexplained gastrointestinal symptoms including
nausea and vomiting
• prolonged fatigue (‘tired all the time’)
• recurrent abdominal pain, cramping or distension
• sudden or unexpected weight loss
• unexplained iron-deficiency anaemia, or other unspecified
anaemia.
1.1.2 Offer serological testing for coeliac disease to children and adults
with:
• any of the following conditions:

− autoimmune thyroid disease
− dermatitis herpetiformis
− irritable bowel syndrome
− type 1 diabetes
or
• first-degree relatives (parents, siblings or children) with coeliac

disease.

1.1.3 Consider offering serological testing for coeliac disease to children
and adults with any of the following:
• Addison's disease
• amenorrhoea
• aphthous stomatitis (mouth ulcers)
• autoimmune liver conditions
• autoimmune myocarditis
• chronic thrombocytopenia purpura
• dental enamel defects
• depression or bipolar disorder
• Down’s syndrome
• epilepsy
• low-trauma fracture
• lymphoma
• metabolic bone disease (such as rickets or osteomalacia)
• microscopic colitis
• persistent or unexplained constipation
• persistently raised liver enzymes with unknown cause
• polyneuropathy
• recurrent miscarriage
• reduced bone mineral density
• sarcoidosis
• Sjögren's syndrome
• Turner syndrome
• unexplained alopecia
• unexplained subfertility.
Dietary considerations before testing for coeliac disease

1.1.4 Do not use serological testing for coeliac disease in infants before
gluten has been introduced to the diet.
1.1.5 Inform people (and their parents or carers, as appropriate) that any
testing for coeliac disease is accurate only if the person continues

to follow a gluten-containing diet during the diagnostic process
(serological tests and biopsy if required).
1.1.6 Inform people that they should not start a gluten-free diet until
diagnosis is confirmed by intestinal biopsy, even if a self-test or
other serological test is positive.
1.1.7 Inform people that when they are following a normal diet
(containing gluten) they should eat some gluten (for example,
bread, chapattis, pasta, biscuits, or cakes) in more than one meal
every day for a minimum of 6 weeks before testing; however, it is
not possible to say exactly how much gluten they should eat.
1.1.8 If a person is reluctant or unable to reintroduce gluten into their diet

before testing:
• refer them to a gastrointestinal specialist and

• inform them that it may be difficult to confirm a diagnosis of
coeliac disease on intestinal biopsy, and that this may have
implications for the prescribing of gluten-free foods.
Other information before serological testing

1.1.9 Inform people who are considering, or have undertaken, self-testing
for coeliac disease (and their parents or carers) that any result from
self-testing needs to be discussed with a healthcare professional
and confirmed by laboratory-based tests.
1.1.10 Before seeking consent to take blood for serological tests, explain:
• what coeliac disease is

• that serological tests do not diagnose coeliac disease, but
indicate whether further testing is needed
• the implications of a positive test (including referral for intestinal
biopsy and implications for other family members)
• the implications of a negative test (that coeliac disease is
unlikely but it could be present or could arise in the future).

1.1.11 Inform people and their parents or carers that a delayed diagnosis
of coeliac disease, or undiagnosed coeliac disease, can result in:
• continuing ill health

• long-term complications, including osteoporosis and increased
fracture risk, unfavourable pregnancy outcomes and a modest
increased risk of intestinal malignancy
• growth failure, delayed puberty and dental problems (in
children).
Serological tests
1.1.12 All tests should be undertaken in laboratories with clinical pathology
accreditation (CPA).
1.1.13 Do not use immunoglobulin G (IgG) or immunoglobulin A (IgA)

anti-gliadin antibody (AGA) tests in the diagnosis of coeliac
disease.
1.1.14 Do not use of self-tests and/or point-of-care tests for coeliac

disease as a substitute for laboratory-based testing.
1.1.15 When clinicians request serology, laboratories should:
• use IgA tissue transglutaminase (tTGA) as the first choice test

• use IgA endomysial antibodies (EMA) testing if the result of the
tTGA test is equivocal
• check for IgA deficiency if the serology is negative 1
• use IgG tTGA and/or IgG EMA serological tests for people with
confirmed IgA deficiency
• communicate the results clearly in terms of values, interpretation
and recommended action.
1.1.16 Do not use human leukocyte antigen (HLA) DQ2/DQ8 testing in the
initial diagnosis of coeliac disease. (However, its high negative
1
Investigation for IgA deficiency should be done if the laboratory detects a low or very low
optical density on IgA tTGA test or low background on IgA EMA test.

predictive value may be of use to gastrointestinal specialists in
specific clinical situations.)
After serological testing

1.1.17 Offer referral to a gastrointestinal specialist for intestinal biopsy to
confirm or exclude coeliac disease to people with positive
serological results from any tTGA or EMA test.
1.1.18 If serology tests are negative but coeliac disease is still clinically
suspected, offer referral to a gastrointestinal specialist for further
assessment.

1.2 Care pathway
Important: Do not use serological testing for coeliac disease in infants before gluten has been introduced to the diet
Person is unlikely to need

Does the person have any of the signs, symptoms testing for coeliac disease at
No this point, unless there is a
or conditions listed in box A or box B?
continuing medical problem
or clinical suspicion
Yes Refer them to a

gastrointestinal
specialist and inform
them that it may be
Is the person willing/able to difficult to confirm a
Is the person on a gluten- reintroduce gluten to their diagnosis of coeliac
containing diet? No No
diet? disease on intestinal
biopsy, and that this
may have implications
for their ability to access
prescribed gluten-free
foods
Recognition an assessment
Yes
Offer serological testing if the person has any of the

signs, symptoms or conditions in box A
Consider offering serological testing if the person
has any of the conditions in box B
Dietary considerations before serological testing Other information before serological testing
Inform people (and their parents or carers as appropriate) • Inform people who are considering, or who have undertaken, self-testing for
that: coeliac disease that any result from self-testing needs to be discussed with a
healthcare professional and confirmed by laboratory-based tests.
• testing (serology and biopsy if required) is accurate
only if they follow a gluten-containing diet • Before seeking consent to take blood for serological tests, explain:
• when following a gluten-containing diet they should eat – what coeliac disease is
some gluten in more than one meal every day for at
least 6 weeks before testing – that serological tests do not diagnose coeliac disease, but indicate whether
further testing is needed
• they should not start a gluten-free diet until diagnosis is
confirmed by intestinal biopsy (even if a self-test or – the implications of a positive test (including referral for intestinal biopsy and
other serological test is positive) implications for other family members)
– the implications of a negative test (that coeliac disease is unlikely but it

could be present or arise in the future).
• Inform people (and their parents or carers as appropriate) that a delayed

diagnosis of coeliac disease, or undiagnosed coeliac disease, can result in:
– continuing ill health
– long-term complications, including osteoporosis and increased fracture risk,

unfavourable pregnancy outcomes and a modest increased risk of intestinal
malignancy
Information needs
– growth failure, delayed puberty and dental problems (in children).

Important:
• All tests should be undertaken in laboratories with clinical pathology accreditation (CPA)
• Do not use IgA or IgG anti-gliadin antibody (AGA) tests in the diagnosis of coeliac disease
• Do not use HLA DQ2/DQ8 testing in the initial diagnosis of coeliac disease (However, its high negative
predictive value may be of use to gastrointestinal specialists in specific clinical situations)
• Do not use self-tests and/or point of care tests for coeliac disease as a substitute for laboratory-based
testing
• Use serological testing for IgA tissue Check for IgA Negative result
transglutaminase (tTGA) as a first-choice test Negative
result deficiencya but continuing
• Use IgA endomysial antibodies (EMA) testing if clinical suspicion
the result of the tTGA test is equivocal
Positive Negative
result result, no
further
reason to
suspect
coeliac
Offer IgG tTGA tests disease
Positive result and/or IgG EMA tests
Unlikely to have coeliac

disease
Serology testing and after
No need to repeat tests
Positive result Negative result

Refer to a gastrointestinal
but continuing
specialist for intestinal biopsy to
clinical suspicion
confirm or exclude coeliac
disease
a
Investigation for IgA deficiency should be done if the laboratory
detects a low or very low optical density on IgA tTGA test or low
background on IgA EMA test.
Signs, symptoms and conditions associated with coeliac disease
Box A. Offer serological testing to children and adults with any of the
following signs, symptoms and conditions
Signs and symptoms Conditions
• Chronic or intermittent diarrhoea • Autoimmune thyroid disease
• Failure to thrive or faltering growth (in • Dermatitis herpetiformis
children) • Irritable bowel syndrome
• Persistent or unexplained gastrointestinal • Type 1 diabetes
symptoms including nausea and vomiting
• First-degree relatives (parents, siblings or
• Prolonged fatigue (‘tired all the time’) children) with coeliac disease
• Recurrent abdominal pain, cramping or
distension
• Sudden or unexpected weight loss
• Unexplained iron-deficiency anaemia, or
other unspecified anaemia
Box B. Consider offering serological testing to children and adults with

any of the following
• Addison's disease • microscopic colitis

• amenorrhoea • persistent or unexplained
• aphthous stomatitis (mouth ulcers) constipation
• autoimmune liver conditions • persistently raised liver enzymes with
unknown cause
• polyneuropathy
• sarcoidosis
• epilepsy
• Turner syndrome
• lymphoma
• metabolic bone disease (such as
rickets or osteomalacia)
1.3 Overview
1.3.1 Coeliac disease: recognition and assessment

Coeliac disease is a state of heightened immunological response to ingested
gluten in genetically susceptible people. Gluten is a protein that is present in
wheat, barley and rye. Historically, coeliac disease was believed to be
uncommon; however, population-based studies have identified that it is more
common than previously thought.
Coeliac disease has traditionally been associated with mainly gastrointestinal

symptoms (such as diarrhoea, abdominal pain, bloating, constipation and
indigestion), because chronic inflammation of the small intestine is a feature of
the immune response to gluten. However, non-gastrointestinal features of
coeliac disease have been increasingly recognised in people presenting with
the disease. Some people with coeliac disease have no obvious symptoms.
Coeliac disease is considered to be more prevalent in people with

autoimmune conditions such as type 1 diabetes or autoimmune thyroid
disease, and in first-degree relatives of people with coeliac disease.
Coeliac disease can be diagnosed at any age (after the introduction of gluten-
containing foods to the infant weaning diet), and presents in both children and
adults.
Because of the disparate nature of its signs and symptoms, and the historical
belief that it is not a common disease, there is concern that coeliac disease
often goes unrecognised and consequently is underdiagnosed. As a result,
people may present to primary and secondary care on many occasions and
with a range of symptoms before diagnosis. Delayed diagnosis is a concern
because the symptoms of coeliac disease remain untreated and because of
the possible long-term effects of undiagnosed coeliac disease.
There is also some uncertainty about which of the serological tests are most
suitable for use in the diagnostic process for coeliac disease. Small intestinal
biopsy is used as the reference standard for the diagnosis of coeliac disease.
Nice clinical guideline 86 Coeliac disease 18

Although there is ongoing debate about the possibility of diagnosis without the
need for an intestinal biopsy, it is accepted that currently it is needed for a
definitive diagnosis.
This short clinical guideline aims to improve the care of children and adults
with undiagnosed coeliac disease by making evidence-based
recommendations about its recognition, and about using serological testing to
direct referral for definitive diagnosis by intestinal biopsy.
This guideline uses the best available clinical-effectiveness and cost-

effectiveness evidence, which is analysed and discussed by the GDG to
develop recommendations. The GDG considered the signs and symptoms,
conditions likely to coexist with coeliac disease, the role of serological testing
in the diagnostic process up to referral for small intestinal biopsy, and the
information needs of patients and carers throughout this process.
1.3.2 The NICE short clinical guideline programme

‘Coeliac disease: recognition and assessment' (NICE clinical guideline 86) is a
NICE short clinical guideline. For a full explanation of the NICE guideline
development process, see ‘The guidelines manual’ (2009) (available from
www.nice.org.uk/guidelinesmanual).
1.3.3 Using this guideline

This document is intended to be relevant to healthcare professionals in
primary and secondary care. The target population is adults and children with
symptoms and/or signs that suggest coeliac disease.
This is the full version of the guideline. It is available from

www.nice.org.uk/CG86. Printed summary versions of this guideline are
available: ‘Understanding NICE guidance’ (a version for patients and carers)
and a quick reference guide (for healthcare professionals). These are also
available from www.nice.org.uk/CG86.

1.3.4 Using recommendations and supporting evidence
For each clinical question the GDG was presented with a summary of the
clinical evidence, and economic evidence if appropriate, derived from the
studies reviewed and appraised. The GDG based the guideline
recommendations on this information. The link between the evidence and the
view of the GDG in making each recommendation is made explicit in the
'Evidence to recommendations' sections (2.2.3, 2.3.4 and 2.4.5).
2 Evidence review
2.1 Introduction
The clinical-effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence that was used in
the development of this guideline is summarised in this section. Further details
about the cost-effectiveness evidence, including details of the economic
model, are given in appendix 6.5; details about the clinical evidence are given
in the tables in appendix 6.6.
The aim of this guideline is to improve the recognition and assessment of

coeliac disease in children and adults; it considers the diagnostic pathway up
to referral for intestinal biopsy. Small intestinal biopsy is the reference
standard used throughout this guideline; the studies included are those in
which coeliac disease was confirmed by intestinal biopsy. In 2004 the Agency
for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) published an evidence
report/technology assessment on coeliac disease. The report included a
series of systematic reviews using clearly defined methods; these reviews
have been included when appropriate to the scope of this guideline. The
AHRQ report, assessed as a well-conducted systematic review, is considered
as high-quality evidence (details of the evidence grading system can be found
in ‘The guidelines manual’ [2009], available from www.nice.org.uk). Other
studies included in this guideline have been mainly cohort-based studies,
notably for the evidence of serological test accuracy. Case–control studies
have also been included when appropriate. Both the cohort and case–control
studies have limitations resulting from study design, and as such are regarded
as level + evidence. Case series, case reports and studies with small

numbers (less than 50 participants) have not been included. When both signs
and symptoms and coexisting conditions have been listed in this guideline
they have been listed alphabetically.
2.2 Prevalence of coeliac disease
2.2.1 Evidence review

The prevalence of coeliac disease has historically been difficult to determine
because in many cases people with coeliac disease do not have specific signs
and symptoms. Difficulties in recognising coeliac disease have resulted in its
prevalence being considerably underestimated.
A search was carried out to identify large population-based studies giving data
on the prevalence of coeliac disease; these are reviewed below.
Overall prevalence of coeliac disease

The AHRQ report (2004) includes studies that considered the prevalence of
coeliac disease in north America and western Europe up to and including
2003. The evidence below includes the AHRQ report with additional relevant
large population-based studies in north America and western Europe from
2003 onwards and studies in other geographical areas from 1990. The AHRQ
report found a prevalence of coeliac disease in children by biopsy of 0.5 to
1.6% (six studies) and by serology of 0.3 to 1.9% (eight studies); in adults the
prevalence by biopsy was 0.07 to1.9% (15 studies) and by serology was 0.2
to 2.7% (22 studies). The three UK-based studies in the AHRQ report are all
of adults, and identify a prevalence of coeliac disease by biopsy of 1.0% and
by serology of 0.8 to 1.9%.
The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (a population-based

cohort study) used IgA EMA to investigate children aged 7.5 years and
reported that 1% (54 out of 5470) were serologically positive for coeliac
disease. This study also showed that IgA EMA positive rates were higher in
girls than in boys, odds ratio (OR) 2.12 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20 to
3.75) (Bingley et al. 2004).

Additional international studies in adults used data which was available from
large samples such as people donating blood (Bdioui et al. 2006; Melo et al.
2006; Oliveria et al. 2007; Pereira et al. 2006; Shahbazkha et al. 2003) and
people attending for prenuptial medical checks (Gomez et al. 2001). A further
study used random sampling from a national register (Roka et al. 2007).
These studies found a prevalence of coeliac disease in adults of 0.14 to
0.86%.
Additional international studies in children used data on children younger than

3 years (Castano et al. 2004), samples from an existing public health register
(Korponay-Szabo et al. 1999) and random sampling of school children (Ben
Hariz et al. 2007; Ertekin et al. 2005). These studies identified a prevalence of
coeliac disease in children of 0.64 to 1.17%.
The AHRQ report (2004) also included studies on the prevalence of coeliac
disease in both children and adults in whom coeliac disease was suspected.
These studies were mainly situated in referral centres and the prevalence of
coeliac disease varied widely: in children it was 1.1 to 4.0% with EMA
serology, 4.6 to 17.0% with biopsy; in adults it was 1.5% with EMA serology,
11.6 to 50.0% with biopsy.
Prevalence in first-degree relatives

The AHRQ report (2004) included studies that considered the prevalence of
coeliac disease in first-degree relatives of people who had had a diagnosis of
coeliac disease. These studies showed a prevalence of 2.8 to 17.2% with
serology (five studies) and 5.6 to 44.1% with biopsy (12 studies). The three
studies completed in the UK all reported a prevalence found using biopsy, and
reported a prevalence in first-degree relatives of 5.6 to 22.5%.
Three additional studies were included (Fraser et al. 2006; Biagi et al. 2008;
Szaflaraka-Sczepanik et al. 2001). These reported a prevalence of coeliac
disease in first-degree relatives of 2 to 17.7%. The study by Fraser et al. was
in the UK and reported a prevalence of 5.5%.

2.2.2 Evidence statements
In national studies in the UK, the prevalence of coeliac disease ranges
between 0.8% and 1.9%. This is broadly similar to other international studies.
Among first-degree relatives of people with coeliac disease, the majority of

studies report a prevalence of coeliac disease between 4.5% and 12%.
There is limited evidence that the prevalence of coeliac disease is twice as

high in females as in males.
2.3 The possible long-term consequences of

undiagnosed coeliac disease
2.3.1 Evidence review

The review considered only the possible long-term consequences of
undiagnosed coeliac disease, and therefore did not include any studies that
considered people with diagnosed coeliac disease. It did not include
consideration of any long-term consequences of coeliac disease that may
affect coexisting conditions such as type 1 diabetes. The included studies
looked at undiagnosed coeliac disease or where other possible long-term
consequences had been noted as present at the point of diagnosis. It should
be noted that these possible long-term consequences are associations and
the studies are not considered to provide evidence of a causal relationship. In
all but one of the included studies coeliac disease had been confirmed by
biopsy; the other study included pregnant women and intestinal biopsy was
not considered ethical in those near to delivery (Greco et al. 2004). Overall
evidence was identified in three areas: pregnancy outcomes, fracture risk and
malignancy.
Pregnancy outcomes
An Italian study of 5055 women admitted to obstetric and gynaecological
wards (Greco et al. 2004) identified no pregnancy outcomes for which there
was a significant difference between women with and without coeliac disease.
Outcomes included risk of spontaneous abortion, premature delivery, low birth
weight and intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR).

A Swedish study analysed data on people from a national inpatient register
who had a hospital-based discharge record of coeliac disease (Ludvigsson et
al. 2005). It included 929 women whose coeliac disease had not been
diagnosed when they gave birth, and 2,822,805 women without coeliac
disease. There were significant differences between outcomes in the two
groups of women. IUGR was reported in 5.5% of mothers with undiagnosed
coeliac disease, and in 3.1% of mothers without coeliac disease (adjusted
odds ratio [OR] 1.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22 to 2.15, p = 0.001).
The equivalent figures for low-birth-weight were 7.0% and 3.4% (adjusted OR
2.13, 95% CI 1.66 to 2.75, p < 0.001); for very-low-birth-weight 1.2% and
0.5% (adjusted OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.35 to 4.43, p = 0.003); for preterm birth
8.0% and 5.0% (adjusted OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.17, p < 0.001); and for
caesarean section 3.4% and 2.3% (adjusted OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.60,
p = 0.001). No significant difference was found between the groups for very
preterm birth (before 30 weeks) or for babies with low Apgar scores (less
than 7).
Fracture risk
A second Swedish study using the national inpatient register (Ludvigsson et
al. 2007) considered hip fractures (14,187 in patients with coeliac disease;
68,852 in patients without coeliac disease) and any fractures (13,724 in
patients with coeliac disease; 65,627 in patients without coeliac disease). The
estimated association of coeliac disease and prior fractures showed an
increased risk of diagnosis with coeliac disease after hip fracture (OR 2.0,
95% CI 1.6 to 2.5, p < 0.001) and after any fracture (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.5 to
1.8, p < 0.001). This study also identified significantly higher rates of hip
fractures in people with undiagnosed coeliac disease compared with those
with diagnosed coeliac disease. This increased risk was seen throughout the
time period from 10 years to 0.01 years before diagnosis of coeliac disease.
A Danish study used the national patient discharge register to consider

fracture risk in people with coeliac disease (Vestergaard et al. 2002). This
study identified no increase in fracture risk before diagnosis of coeliac disease
compared with matched controls for skull and jaw fractures, spine, rib and

pelvis fractures, upper arm fractures, forearm fractures, Colles’ fractures,
hand and finger fractures, hip and femur fractures, fractured neck of femur,
lower leg fractures, foot fractures and osteoporosis.
Malignancy
A US study considered the standardised mortality ratio (SMR) of observed to
expected rates for cancers that were diagnosed before or simultaneously with
coeliac disease diagnosis (Green et al. 2003). Although numbers were small,
this study identified significant SMRs for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (4
observed cases compared with 0.7 expected, SMR 5.3, 95% CI 2.3 to 13,
p < 0.001), small bowel cancer (3 vs. 0.1, SMR 45, 95% CI 34 to 61,
p < 0.001), oesophageal cancer (3 vs. 0.2, SMR 16, 95% CI 9.7 to 26,
p < 0.001) and melanoma (4 vs. 0.8, SMR 5, 95% CI 2.1 to 12, p < 0.001). It
did not identify a significant difference SMR for colon cancer, breast cancer
and total cancers.
An Italian study considered the impact of delayed diagnosis of coeliac disease

on cancer risk using a standardised incidence ratio (SIR) of observed
compared with expected cases in 1968 adults with diagnosed coeliac disease
(Silano et al. 2007). In this study 55 people were diagnosed with cancer
before or simultaneously with coeliac disease diagnosis, compared with
42.1 expected cases (SIR 1.3, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.7). Although numbers involved
were small, this study identified 20 observed cases compared with
4.2 expected of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (SIR 4.7, 95% CI 2.9 to 7.3), for
colon cancer 7 compared with 6.2 (SIR 1.1, 95%CI 0.68 to 1.56), for small
bowel cancer 5 compared with 0.19 (SIR 25, 95% CI 8.5 to 51.4) and for
Hodgkin’s lymphoma 4 compared with 0.4 (SIR 10, 95% CI 2.7 to 25). A lower
risk was identified for breast cancer in people with newly diagnosed coeliac
disease (3 vs. 14, SIR 0.2, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.62).

There is evidence that undiagnosed maternal coeliac disease has a negative
effect on intrauterine growth and birth weight, and is associated with
increased preterm birth and caesarean section rates.

Evidence suggests an association between undiagnosed coeliac disease and
an increased risk of fractures.
Undiagnosed coeliac disease is associated with an increased risk of non-

Hodgkin’s and Hodgkin’s lymphoma and small bowel cancer, but overall rates
are low.
2.3.3 Linking evidence to recommendations

The GDG discussed the evidence, agreed the evidence statements relating to
the possible effects of long-term undiagnosed coeliac disease, and developed
recommendations. This discussion is summarised here:
• The GDG agreed the need to include information about the risk of long-
term complications of undiagnosed coeliac disease. It noted that although
there is an increased risk of the specific cancers with undiagnosed coeliac
disease, the overall risk of developing these cancers is low.
• The GDG discussed the different possible long-term effects in children and
adults and agreed an additional recommendation for children specifying
growth failure, delayed puberty and dental complications.
2.4 Signs and symptoms of coeliac disease and

coexisting conditions with coeliac disease
2.4.1 Evidence review – signs and symptoms

Recognition and assessment of coeliac disease can be difficult because of the
variety of presenting signs and symptoms.
The AHRQ report considered the prevalence of coeliac disease in adults with
iron-deficiency anaemia and in adults with low bone-mineral density. Eight
studies from the AHRQ report with 50 or more participants were included;
these were all in adults with biopsy-proven coeliac disease. The prevalence of
coeliac disease in people with iron-deficiency anaemia ranged from 2.3 to
15%. Four studies from the AHRQ report considered people with low bone
mineral density; these studies identified a prevalence of coeliac disease
ranging from 0 to 3%.

Further papers included in this review considered people with coeliac disease
at the point of it being diagnosed and the features that they presented with.
(Those reported in table 1 are where 5% or more of participants had the
presenting feature.)
Table 1 Presenting features of people with coeliac disease

Feature People with Adults/children Studies
the feature
Iron-deficiency 39.3% adults and children Bottaro 1999
anaemia 25% adults Brandimarte 2002
11.7% adults and children Emami 2008
Other or unspecified 16% adults and children Dickey 1997
anaemia 3 to19% children Garampazzi 2007
3.0 to 12.7% adults Rampertab 2006
23.3% older adults Vilppula 2008
Anorexia 7.8 % adults and children Bottaro 1999
25.6 to 35.1% children Bottaro 1993
Weight loss 43.6 to 59.6% children Bottaro 1993
6% adults and children Dickey 1997
15.6% adults Hopper 2008
Abdominal 28.4 to 35.8% children Bottaro 1993
distension/bloating 10% adults and children Emami 2008
20 to 39% children Garampazzi 2007
Abdominal pain 12% adults and children Dickey 1997
Abdominal 31.7% older adults Vilppula 2008
pain/distension/flatule
nce
Vomiting 26.1 to 32.5% children Bottaro 1993
Flatulence 5.4% adults and children Emami 2008
Diarrhoea 70.2 to 75.2% children Bottaro 1993
51% adults and children Dickey 1997
42.9% adults Hopper 2008
37.2 to 91.3% adults Rampertab 2006
25% older adults Vippula 2008
Short stature/growth 19.2% adults and children Bottaro 1999
failure 20.2 to 30.8% children Bottaro 1993
Irritability 10.3 to 13.9% children Bottaro 1993
Alopecia 10% adults Brandimarte 2002

Feature People with Adults/children Studies
the feature
Osteoporosis 6% adults Brandimarte 2002
Recurrent aphthous 6% adults Brandimarte 2002
stomatitis
Amenorrhoea/ 6% adults Brandimarte 2002
recurrent abortion
Hypertransaminase- 6% adults Brandimarte 2002
aemia
Abnormal liver 5% adults and children Dickey 1997
biochemistry
Chronic fatigue 7% adults and children Dickey 1997
Failure to thrive 48 to 89% children Garampazzi 2007
Constipation 4 to 12% children Garampazzi 2007
Irregular bowel habits 4 to 12% children Garampazzi 2007
Three further studies considered a specific symptom or presentation and the

percentage of those presenting with it who also had coeliac disease:
• Karnam et al. (2004) considered adults who were undergoing endoscopy

for iron-deficiency anaemia and found 3 of 105 people (2.9%) had coeliac
disease.
• Imanzadeh et al. (2005) considered children with small bowel type chronic
diarrhoea and found that 54 of 825 people (8.96%) had coeliac disease.
• Sanders et al. (2005) considered adults with acute abdominal pain and
found that 9 of 300 people (3%) had coeliac disease. In people with non-
specific abdominal pain 10.5% had coeliac disease.
Some people presenting with the features of coeliac disease in the studies
summarised in table 1 had a coexisting condition at the point of diagnosis of
coeliac disease:
• dermatitis herpetiformis – 10%, Brandimarte 2002 (adults); 1%, Dickey

1997 (adults and children)
• irritable bowel syndrome – 20.2%, Emami 2008 (adults and children)
• liver disorder – 0.85%, Emami 2008 (adults and children)
• rheumatological disorder – 0.28%, Emami 2008 (adults and children)

• Crohn’s disease – 0.57%, Emami 2008 (adults and children)
• bone disease – 0 to15%, Rampertab 2006 (adults)
• malignancy – 5 to 21.7%, Rampertab 2006 (adults).
2.4.2 Evidence review – coexisting conditions

The studies included for this review considered coexisting conditions
associated with coeliac disease up to and including the point of it being
diagnosed. Studies that considered subsequent development of conditions in
people who had been diagnosed with coeliac disease were excluded. The
relationship between the coexisting conditions and coeliac disease here is not
considered to be causal; the aim was to examine whether people with certain
conditions have a higher rate of coeliac disease than the general population.
Papers in which there was a substantial discrepancy between numbers of
people who had serological tests and numbers of people who had biopsies
were excluded, because of the possibility that results could be biased if not all
those with positive serology had a biopsy.
Type 1 diabetes
The AHRQ report included papers on the prevalence of coeliac disease in
people with type 1 diabetes; 21 of these studies (people with coeliac disease
proven by biopsy; each had 50 or more participants) were included here.
These studies identified a prevalence of coeliac disease in people with type 1
diabetes of 1.4 to 8.2% in children, 0.3 to 11.3% in adults and 1.7 to 5.7% in
combined child and adult studies. Two additional papers also considered
people with type 1 diabetes: one in children reported that 6.6% had coeliac
disease (Salardi et al. 2008) and one in adults reported that 6.4% had coeliac
disease (Picarelli et al. 2005).
Other conditions
Papers were included that considered cohorts of people with specified other
conditions who were tested for coeliac disease (see table 2).

Table 2 Coexisting conditions and coeliac disease
Condition Study participants Participants with Study author
coeliac disease and year
Arthritis 160 adults with rheumatoid 0.63% Francis 2002
arthritis
62 children with juvenile 1.5% George 1996
chronic arthritis
119 children with juvenile 2.5% Lepore 1996
chronic arthritis
Autoimmune 136 adults with 2.9% Guliter 2007
thyroid autoimmune thyroiditis
152 adults with 3.29% Sategna-
autoimmune thyroid Guidetti 1998
disease
Down 1453 children and adults 4 (0.3%), adjusted risk Goldacre 2004
syndrome ratio 4.7 (95% CI 1.3
to 12.2)
1110 children, 92 adults 55 (4.6%) Bonamico 2001
Epilepsy 255 children and adults 2 (0.8%) Pratesi 2003
177 adults 1:44 (2.3%) Cronin 1998
Inflammatory 354 adults (173 Crohn’s 0.85% Leeds 2007
bowel disease, 154 ulcerative
disease colitis, 27 other conditions)
Irritable bowel 300 adults OR 7 (95% CI 1.7 to Sanders 2001
syndrome 28.0)
Liver disease 624 adults with chronic 0% Thevenot 2007
hepatitis C
738 children and adults 1:185 (0.45%) Germenis 2005
with chronic liver disease
57 adults with primary 7% Dickey 1997
biliary cirrhosis
Lymphoid 298 adults 0.67% Farre 2004
malignancy
Myocarditis 187 adults with 4.4% (p < 0.003 vs. Frustaci 2002
autoimmune myocarditis control group)
Sjögren's 111 adults 4.54% Szodoray 2004
syndrome
Subfertility 99 women 3.03% Meloni 1999
(p = 0.037
unexplained infertility
vs. control group)
150 women 2.7% all unexplained Collin 1996
infertility (p = 0.06 vs.
control group)
Turner 389 children and adults 25 (6.4%) Bonamico 2002
syndrome

One study was also included that identified the existing conditions of people at
the point of diagnosis of coeliac disease (Collin et al. 1994). Also included
were studies in which logistical regression had been used to investigate
coeliac disease that developed following a prior history of a coexisting
condition (see table 3).
Table 3 Coexisting conditions and coeliac disease

Study group: Coexisting conditions
people with newly
diagnosed coeliac
disease
335 adults (335 Endocrine disorders: 12% (study group) vs. 4.2% (control group),
control group) p = 0.0003
(figures are given • insulin dependent diabetes 18 (5.4%) vs. 5 (1.5%),
for study group p = 0.0094
first, control group
second) • autoimmune thyroid 18 (5.4%) vs. 9 (2.7%)
(Collin 1994) Connective tissue disorder: 7.2% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.011
• Sjögren's syndrome 11 (3.3%) vs. 1 (0.3%), p = 0.0059
• rheumatoid arthritis 6 (1.8%) vs. 7 (2.1%)
Pulmonary disorders:
• asthma 9 vs. 12
• sarcoidosis 5 vs. 0
Neurological disorders:
• epileptic seizures 5 vs. 3
• dementia 5 vs. 1
Liver diseases: 4 vs. 0
14,349 adults and Increased risk of coeliac disease in those with prior sarcoidosis
children (69,998 OR 3.58, 95% CI 1.98 to 6.45, p < 0.001
control)
(Ludvigsson 2007a)
14,371 adults and Increased risk of coeliac disease in those with prior
children (70,096 polyneuropathy OR 5.4, 95% CI 3.6 to 8.2, p < 0.001
control) Other neurological diseases were not associated with
(Ludvigsson 2007b) subsequent coeliac disease
13,776 adults and Increased risk of coeliac disease in those with history of mood
children (66,815 disorder:
control) • prior depression OR 2.3, 95% CI 2.0 to 2.8, p < 0.001
(Ludvigsson 2007c)
• prior bipolar disorder OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.3, p = 0.001

Study group: Coexisting conditions
people with newly
diagnosed coeliac
disease
13,818 adults and Increased risk of coeliac disease in those with history of liver
children (66,584 disorder:
control) • acute hepatitis OR 4.98, 95% CI 1.59 to 12.06, p = 0.004
(Ludvigsson 2007d)
• chronic hepatitis OR 5.79, 95% CI 3.13 to 10.70,
p < 0.001
• primary sclerosing cholangitis OR 4.42, 95% CI 2.38 to
8.24, p < 0.001
• fatty liver OR 5.83, 95% CI 1.96 to 17.36, p < 0.002
• ascites OR 5.00, 95% CI 2.08 to 12.01, p < 0.001
• liver failure, extended OR 5.88, 95% CI 4.05 to 8.54,
p < 0.001
• liver failure, restricted OR 8.33, 95% CI 1.99 to 34.87,
p < 0.004
• liver cirrhosis/fibrosis OR 5.83, 95% CI 3.86 to 8.81,
p < 0.001
• primary biliary cirrhosis OR 15.00, 95 %CI 4.84 to 46.51,
p < 0.001
• hepatomegaly OR 2.00 (95% CI 0.39 to 10.31) not
significant
14,335 children and Increased risk of coeliac disease in those with prior tuberculosis:
adults (69,888 OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.75 to 3.55, p < 0.001
control)
(Ludvigsson 2007e)
15,533 children and Increased risk of coeliac disease in those with prior sepsis
adults (14,491 OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.7 to 3.0, p < 0.001
inpatient reference
controls)
(Ludvigsson 2008)
14,366 children and Increased risk of coeliac disease in those with prior Addison's
adults (70,095 disease OR 8.6, 95% CI 3.4 to 21.8
control)
(Elfström 2007)
14,347 adults and Increased risk of coeliac disease in those with history of
children (69,967 thrombocytopenia purpura OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.60 to 5.50, p
control) (Olen = 0.001; and those with prior chronic thrombocytopenia purpura
2008) OR 6.00, 95% CI 1.83 to 19.66, p = 0.003

In children and adults, coeliac disease can present with a broad range of
signs and symptoms. The most frequent are:
• abdominal pain, cramping or distension


• failure to thrive or faltering growth in children
• fatigue
• iron-deficiency anaemia
• nausea or vomiting
• weight loss.
The following findings may also be present when coeliac disease is

diagnosed:
• abnormal liver biochemistry

• alopecia
• amenorrhoea
• constipation
• dermatitis herpetiformis
• epilepsy
• osteoporosis
• recurrent abortion
• type 1 diabetes.
There is good evidence that coeliac disease has an increased prevalence in

people with:
• autoimmune thyroid disease (up to 7%)

• irritable bowel syndrome (up to 7%)
• type 1 diabetes (2–10%).
There is some evidence that coeliac disease has an increased prevalence in

people with:
• chronic thrombocytopenic purpura
• depression/bipolar disorder

• epilepsy
• liver conditions
• lymphoid malignancy
• polyneuropathy
• sarcoidosis
• Turner syndrome

The GDG discussed the evidence and agreed the evidence statements
relating to the signs and symptoms of coeliac disease and the coexisting
conditions, and developed recommendations. This discussion is summarised
here:
• The GDG agreed that there were certain signs and symptoms and
coexisting conditions (as well as the known risk factor of being a first-
degree relative of a person with coeliac disease) that are sufficiently
associated with coeliac disease that people with them should be offered
serological testing, and developed recommendations to reflect this. The
GDG discussed the historic division of symptoms into gastrointestinal and
non-gastrointestinal and concluded that it would be more beneficial to
identify the overall signs and symptoms for which testing would be
recommended. The GDG further discussed the non-specific nature of many
of the signs and symptoms and consequently added 'unexplained' and
'chronic' to the description of some signs and symptoms to ensure that
people who may have coeliac disease are identified.
• The GDG agreed a list of further signs, symptoms and coexisting
conditions for which they wanted to raise awareness of the link with coeliac
disease. Therefore recommendations were developed that identified where
offering serological testing for coeliac disease should be considered.
• The GDG discussed weight loss as a feature of coeliac disease and noted
that, although weight loss can be a symptom of coeliac disease, the
traditional view of a patient with coeliac disease being underweight is no

longer true and that patients may present underweight, at a normal weight
or overweight.
Recommendation 1.1.1
Offer serological testing for coeliac disease to children and adults with any of
the following signs and symptoms:

• failure to thrive or faltering growth (in children)
• persistent or unexplained gastrointestinal symptoms including nausea and
vomiting
• prolonged fatigue (‘tired all the time’)
• recurrent abdominal pain, cramping or distension
• sudden or unexpected weight loss
• unexplained iron-deficiency anaemia, or other unspecified anaemia.
Offer serological testing for coeliac disease to children and adults with:
• any of the following conditions:

− autoimmune thyroid disease
− dermatitis herpetiformis
− irritable bowel syndrome
− type 1 diabetes
or
• first-degree relatives (parents, siblings or children) with coeliac disease.

Consider offering serological testing for coeliac disease to children and adults
with any of the following:
• Addison's disease
• amenorrhoea
• autoimmune liver conditions
• epilepsy
• lymphoma
• metabolic bone disease (such as rickets or osteomalacia)
• persistent or unexplained constipation
• persistently raised liver enzymes with unknown cause
• polyneuropathy
• sarcoidosis
• Turner syndrome
Do not use serological testing for coeliac disease in infants before gluten has
been introduced to the diet.

2.5 Serological tests in the diagnostic process for coeliac
disease
2.5.1 Evidence review – information for patients before testing

The search strategy was designed to identify any studies that relate
specifically to the information needs and support of patients and parents or
carers before the diagnosis of coeliac disease. No studies were identified.
2.5.2 Evidence review – serological tests

This review incorporated studies that included a blood sample drawn from
children or adults suspected of having coeliac disease. This suspicion may
have been based on clinical symptoms, an existing condition (such as type 1
diabetes) or having a first-degree relative with coeliac disease. The included
studies were mainly cohort studies, which provided the best quality evidence.
The data were synthesised and are presented in the form of forest plots and
receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (see appendix 6.3). Summary
statistics have not been included because the studies were not considered
homogenous, the methodology for the meta-analysis of diagnostic studies is
not clear and expert opinion in this area varies. Within the studies different kits
and different cut-off values were used for the analysis 2. Further differences
between studies were different or incompletely reported biopsy strategies,
possible variability between laboratories or operators, the use of different
samples or studies taking place in several different countries.
The serological tests considered for this review were:
• IgA AGA
• IgG AGA
• IgA EMA
• IgG EMA
• IgA tTGA
• IgG tTGA.
2
If studies used different cut-off levels, the data used were that of the manufacturer‘s
recommended cut-off levels.

Table 4 summarises the studies, total participants, test methods (enzyme-
linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA] or diffusion in gel [DIG]) and substrate
used for EMA (human umbilical cord [HU] or monkey oesophagus [ME]) and
for tTGA (human recombinant [HR] or guinea pig [GP]) in the included studies.
Table 4 Summary of serological test studies

Serological Number of Total Methods
test studies participants
including
this test
IgA AGA 31 5600 24 used ELISA, 5 used DIG-ELISA, 1
used immunohistochemistry, 1 used
immunofluorescence
IgG AGA 25 4820 20 used ELISA, 3 used DIG-ELISA, 1
used immunohistochemistry, 1 used
immunofluorescence
IgA EMA ME 21 5265 18 used immunofluorescence, 2 used
ELISA, 1 used DIG-ELISA, 1 unknown
IgA EMA HU 3 264 3 used immunofluorescence
IgG EMA ME 1 89 1 used immunofluorescence
IgA tTGA GP 8 946 8 used ELISA
IgA tTGA HR 11 3853 9 used ELISA, 1 used radiobinding
assay, 1 unknown
IgG tTGA GP 1 111 1 used ELISA
IgG tTGA HR 1 254 1 unknown
IgA deficiency
People with IgA deficiency will have a false negative result if IgA-based
serological tests are used in the diagnosis of coeliac disease. It has been
suggested that there has been inadequate evaluation of IgA deficiency while
testing for coeliac disease, which has resulted in the underdiagnosis of both
(McGowan et al. 2008). Therefore, this guideline also considered the use of
IgA-deficiency testing and IgG-based serological testing in the diagnostic
process for coeliac disease.
Included studies
All studies considered people with suspected coeliac disease who had one of
the included serological tests and had coeliac disease confirmed by biopsy.
There were 29 studies included from the AHRQ (2004) report, 18 in children

(Altuntas et al. 1998; Artan et al. 1998; Ascher et al. 1996; Bahia et al. 2001;
Bode et al. 1993; Chan et al. 2001; Chartrand et al. 1997; Chirdo et al. 1999;
Iltanen et al. 1999; Kumar et al. 1989; Lindberg et al. 1985; Lindquist et al.
1994; Maki et al. 1991; Meini et al. 1996; Poddar et al. 2002; Rich et al. 1990;
Russo et al. 1999; Wolters et al. 2002), seven in adults (Bardela et al. 2001;
Bode et al. 1994; Carroccio et al. 2002; Kaukinen et al. 2000; McMillan et al.
1991; Valdimarss et al. 1996; Vogelsang et al. 1995) and four in children and
adults (Carroccio et al. 2002; Gonczi et al. 1991; Tesei et al. 2003; Troncone
et al. 1999). A further 14 studies were identified from the search, four in
children (Del Rosario et al. 1998; Liu et al. 2003 and 2005; Viola et al. 2004),
six in adults (Abrams et al. 2006; Hopper et al. 2008; Johnston et al. 2003;
Kocna et al. 2002; Niveloni et al. 2007; Reeves et al. 2006) and four in
children and adults (Carroccio et al. 2006; Dickey et al. 1997; Emami et al.
2008; Rostami et al. 1999). The largest of the additional studies was based in
the UK and included a cohort of 2000 adults, 77 of whom were diagnosed with
coeliac disease, and included data on IgA/IgG AGA, IgA tTGA and IgA EMA
with biopsy (Hopper et al. 2008).

Table 5 Sensitivity/specificity of serological tests for coeliac disease
Serological Studies Sensitivity Specificity
test
IgA AGA 31 studies (5600 Range 23 to100% Range 45 to100%
participants) (adults 46 to 100%) (adults 45 to 100%)
18 child studies (children 23 to (children 51 to 99%)
10 adult studies 100%)
3 child/adult studies
IgG AGA 25 studies (4830 Range 46 to 100% Range 77 to 99%
IgA EMA 23 studies (5529 Range 68 to 100% Range 89 to 100%
IgG EMA 1 adult study (89 Sensitivity 39% Specificity 98%
participants)
IgA tTGA 19 studies (4799 Range 38 to 100% Range 25 to 100%
IgG tTGA 2 studies (365 Sensitivity 23 to Specificity 89 to 98%
participants) 85%
1 adult study
1 child/adult study
The overall efficacy of the IgA AGA, IgA EMA and IgA tTGA serological tests
was summarised in forest plots and ROC curves (see appendix 6.3). The
ROC curves below show the overall results for the IgA AGA, tTGA and EMA
tests. They show a lower level of accuracy for the IgA AGA than the other
tests, with both IgA EMA and IgA tTGA identified as having high levels of both
sensitivity and specificity. For AGA the IgA serological tests results appeared
to show higher sensitivity and specificity than the IgG tests. For IgG tTGA and
IgG EMA there were insufficient data available to draw reasonable
conclusions.

IgA tTG
IgA EMA
IgA AGA
Legend
Specificity
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Sensitivity
Figure 1 IgA overall results for anti-gliadin antibodies, anti-endomysial

antibodies and anti tissue transglutaminase antibodies
Combined and sequence tests

A small number of papers considered the sensitivity and specificity of test
combinations or sequencing of tests. One large UK study in adults (Hopper et
al. 2008) considered the use of IgA tTGA and EMA. This study identified
improvements in positive predictive value (PPV) and some small differences
in sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value (NPV) if both tests were
used, either in a two-step process or simultaneously, compared with if tests
were completed individually.
A second UK-based paper (Johnston et al. 2003), also in adults, considered

the results if either IgA tTGA or EMA were positive. Positive results for either
test gave a lower PPV than was found with each test individually, and a higher
NPV than IgA tTGA.
A paper from the Czech Republic (Kocna et al. 2002) considered a two-step
screening algorithm and identified IgA/IgG AGA to be the least accurate

first-step marker if it is followed by biopsy, with IgA EMA the most accurate
first-step marker if it is followed by IgA tTGA.
Three studies in the AHRQ report considered the use of IgA/IgG AGA
together or each individually; they did not find the combination results to be
notably different from the individual tests.
Human leukocyte antigen tests

Coeliac disease has a genetic association with certain types of type II human
leukocyte antigens (HLA); HLA DQ2 is found in 95% of people with coeliac
disease and HLA DQ8 in most of the remaining 5%. No studies identified by
the searches considered the sensitivity and specificity of the HLA DQ2 and
DQ8 tests in coeliac disease. The AHRQ report identified papers that
considered the prevalence of HLA DQ2 and DQ8 in a population of people
with coeliac disease, but these studies were not designed to determine the
diagnostic utility of HLA DQ2 or DQ8. Three studies in the AHRQ report were
completed in people with biopsy-proven coeliac disease; these had sensitivity
results of 87 to 90% and specificity of 70 to 81%.
Age
ROC curve analysis categorising studies into those with child participants,
those with adult participants and those with mixed (child and adult)
participants reflected the overall analysis, with both IgA EMA and IgA tTGA
(there is insufficient evidence for IgG in either test to plot on the curves)
showing considerably higher levels of sensitivity and specificity than IgA or
IgG AGA.
One study (Viola 2004) also considered IgA AGA, IgA EMA and IgA tTGA
results in children 2 years and younger and those older than 2 years. It found
similar results in both age categories for IgA tTGA and for IgA EMA.

Subgroups
The search for this question was designed to identify studies in which there
was evidence that the serological tests for coeliac disease performed in any
way differently from the general population. The only areas in which studies
were identified were liver disease and IgA deficiency.
• Liver disease: one study of 105 participants who had primary biliary
cirrhosis reported a specificity range for IgA tTGA of 82.5 to 97.1% and
95.1 to 100% for IgG tTGA (Bizzaro et al. 2006). The authors noted that
with almost all the antibody concentrations IgA tTGA was close to the cut-
off level, and that positive results were inconsistent between the test kits.
They identified a concern about the false-positive rate with IgA tTGA testing
in people with primary biliary cirrhosis, although only six participants had
biopsies.
• IgA deficiency: one paper was identified that considered the use of IgG
AGA and IgG tTGA tests in 126 children with IgA deficiency (Lenhardt et al.
2004). Eleven were diagnosed with coeliac disease: all were IgG tTGA
positive and five were also IgG AGA positive, this suggests that IgG tTGA
is more accurate than IgG AGA in children with IgA deficiency.
Newer tests
Deamidated gliadin
Two papers were included that considered the use of deamidated gliadin
peptide (DGP)-based assays as a diagnostic tool for coeliac disease. The first
paper considered the use of IgA and IgG antibodies to synthetic DGP and
tTGA in 176 children (Agardh et al. 2007) and found 119 (68%) with coeliac
disease.

Table 6 Sensitivity and specificity results for deamidated gliadin (Agardh
et al. 2007)
Antibody Sensitivity Specificity PPV NPV
IgA/G DGP/tTGA 100% 94.7% 97.5% 100%
IgA/G DGP 97.5% 98.2% 99.1% 94.9%
IgA DGP 90.8% 94.7% 97.3% 83.1%
IgG DGP 95.0% 98.2% 99.1% 90.3%
IgA tTGA 96.6% 100% 100% 93.4%
IgG tTGA 12.6% 100% 100% 35.4%
The second study considered 141 adults and used IgA tTGA and IgA/IgG
DGP; 60 were diagnosed with coeliac disease (Niveloni et al. 2007).
Table 7 Sensitivity and specificity results for deamidated gliadin

(Niveloni et al. 2007)
Antibody Sensitivity Specificity PPV NPV
IgA DGP 98.3% 93.8% 92.2% 98.7%
IgG DGP 96.7% 100% 100% 97.6%
IgA + IgG DGP 98.3% 98.8% 98.3% 79.6%
IgA tTGA 95.0% 97.5% 96.6% 96.3%
IgA DGP + tTGA 100% 97.5% 96.7% 100%
IgG DPG + IgA tTGA 100% 97.5% 96.7% 100%
IgA+IgG DGP + tTGA 100% 96.3% 95.2% 100%
Results for both of these studies using deamidated gliadin peptide showed
sensitivity and specificity values similar to those found with tTGA.

Immunochromatographic sticks
One paper was included that considered the use of immunochromatographic
sticks 3 for tissue transglutaminase and antigliadin antibody screening in 286
children and 49 adults (Ferre-Lopez et al. 2004); 142 (51%) children and 30
(61%) adults were diagnosed with coeliac disease. Sensitivity and specificity
results for immunochromatographic sticks were broadly similar to those from
the ELISA method:
• IgA/G tTGA (tTG stick): children sensitivity 97%, specificity 98%; adults
sensitivity 83%, specificity 100%
• IgA tTGA (tTG-AGA stick): children sensitivity 96%, specificity 98%; adults
• IgA AGA (tTG-AGA stick): children sensitivity 89%, specificity 96%; adults
• IgA tTGA + AGA (stick, one test): children sensitivity 99%, specificity 95%;
adults sensitivity 86%, specificity 100%.

The IgA tTGA and IgA EMA serological tests show high levels of sensitivity
and specificity in the diagnostic process for coeliac disease.
Gliadin antibody serological tests show lower levels of sensitivity and

specificity than tTGA and EMA.
Based on limited clinical evidence, combination testing with IgA tTGA and IgA
EMA does not appear to substantially to improve accuracy in the diagnostic
process.
There is limited evidence that IgA tTGA yields more false positive results in
people with liver disease than in the general population.
Serological tests have comparable accuracy in children and in adults.
Newer tests for deamidated gliadin may be useful but require further
evaluation.
3
Can be used for self-test or point of care testing.

Limited evidence suggests that point-of-care tests and self tests may be
accurate but require further evaluation.
HLA DQ2 or DQ8 is present in approximately 25% of the UK population so a

positive test has no predictive value, but a negative test can exclude a
diagnosis of coeliac disease.
2.5.4 Health economics

Published health economics material
A literature review was conducted to identify evidence on the cost-
effectiveness of serological tests for coeliac disease.
Several potentially useful studies were identified (Atkinson et al. 1997;

Dretzke et al. 2004; Dorn et al. 2007; Harewood and Murray 2001; Hopper et
al. 2008; Mein and Ladabaum et al. 2004; Shamir et al. 2006; Spiegel et al.
2004; Swigonski et al. 2008; Yagil et al. 2005). The studies by Atkinson et al.
(1997) and Harewood and Murray (2001) were cost-minimisation studies that
compared serological test strategies with biopsy for diagnosing coeliac
disease. Dorn et al. (2007), Hopper et al. (2008) and Yagil et al. (2005) used
cost-effectiveness analysis to examine the costs and diagnostic accuracy of
serological tests for coeliac disease. Dorn et al. (2007) also examined the cost
effectiveness of HLA testing. Mein and Ladabaum (2004) and Spiegel et
al. (2004) examined the cost effectiveness of testing people with irritable
bowel syndrome for coeliac disease. Shamir et al. (2006) examined a
population screening approach in the adult population and Swigonski et al.
(2008) examined the cost effectiveness of screening for coeliac disease in
children with Down’s syndrome, with the specific aim of preventing lymphoma.
None of the 10 papers examining the cost effectiveness of serological tests for
coeliac disease was considered directly applicable to this guideline. However,
one UK study (Dretzke et al. 2004) examined serological tests and used
quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as an outcome measure, so was reviewed
in detail for this guideline. The remaining papers were used to explore
previous approaches to modelling serological test strategies and to inform the
structure of the model but were not quality-assessed or reviewed in detail for

this guideline because they did not include health-related quality-of-life
outcomes and/or were not based in the UK.
A full data extraction form for Dretzke et al. (2004) is available in appendix 6.5
and the techniques from that study (2004) have been examined alongside
careful consideration of the modelling methods used by the other studies
identified in the review.
Summary of Dretzke et al. (2004)

Dretzke et al. (2004) is a full health technology assessment (HTA) of
autoantibody testing in children with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes. It
includes an economic model to quantify the costs and benefits of screening
for coeliac disease at the time of diagnosis of diabetes. The assessment took
place because of the variation in practice of screening for autoantibodies
associated with coeliac disease in this population.
Six possible screening strategies were compared:
• no screening
• biopsy of all children
• single autoantibody test confirmed by biopsy in those testing positive
• combination of autoantibody tests confirmed by biopsy in those testing
positive
• single autoantibody test without confirmatory biopsy
• combination of autoantibody tests without confirmatory biopsy.
The authors were clear that not all of these strategies are used in current
clinical practice, although all strategies were included for completeness. The
analysis took an NHS perspective, with costs and outcomes modelled over a
lifetime.
The prevalence of undiagnosed coeliac disease in children with diabetes was

estimated from the literature. The effectiveness estimates for the serological
tests were taken from the authors’ systematic review outlined in the report.
The tests considered were IgA AGA, IgG AGA, IgA EMA, IgA ARA and IgA
tTGA. Other tests were excluded because too few studies were found. The

values used in the model were taken from the summary ROC curves
presented in the clinical section of Dretzke et al. (2004) for each test at the
point at which sensitivity and specificity were equal. This is called the Q point.
For combination tests the authors assumed that the results of the tests were
independent and clearly set out the method of calculating sensitivity and
specificity for combination strategies. Adherence to a gluten-free diet was
included in the model, as was the proportion of patients who would have
received a later diagnosis through normal clinical routes if they had not been
previously picked up by screening. The delay to diagnosis for these patients
was included, with associated costs and utilities for undiagnosed coeliac
disease. The authors assumed that the delay to diagnosis was 5 years in the
base case.
Utility estimates (quality of life weights) and assumptions were informed by

existing literature. Studies on quality of life of treated and untreated coeliac
disease were searched and reviewed. Utilities could not be derived directly
from the studies identified. Estimates of the utility of treated and untreated
coeliac disease, and of the disutility of endoscopy, biopsy and gluten-free diet
were derived from the literature and assumptions.
Costs were estimated for serological tests, endoscopy and biopsy, and gluten-
free diet. Personal communication was used to evaluate the costs of the
serological tests; this is likely to be because of the absence of a national tariff
for diagnostic tests (such as the British National Formulary for drug prices).
All strategies were compared with a no-screening strategy. The lowest cost
per QALY gained was for a positive IgA EMA with confirmatory biopsy, with an
incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £12,250 per QALY gained compared
with no screening. The least cost-effective strategies were those using IgG
AGA tests alone or in combination with other autoantibody tests. The authors
reported that the results were sensitive to the disutility of being on a gluten-
free diet, the cost of gluten-free diet, the differences in utilities between health
states and the reduction in life expectancy as a result of coeliac disease.

An important limitation of this study is that the authors do not present the
costs and QALYs separately in the results section. This makes it difficult to
determine whether costs or QALYs have the most influence on the
incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Limitations of the individual input
parameters are discussed throughout the methods section, but the discussion
does not address limitations of the overall model.
De novo economic model

In summary, there is evidence on the cost effectiveness of serological tests for
various patient populations and country settings; however, there is a lack of
evidence for the cost effectiveness of serological tests for the patient
population of direct relevance to this guideline.
Because of the lack of published economic evidence that fully addresses the
cost effectiveness of serological testing in the decision-making context of this
guideline, the GDG requested the development of a de novo model. Any cost-
effectiveness analysis carried out should also examine the costs and
consequences of the outcomes of diagnosis. Although it is outside the scope
of this guideline to make recommendations on the treatment or management
of coeliac disease, the economic evaluation considers the costs and benefits
of current standard practice after diagnosis of coeliac disease. This allows us
to include the long-term consequences of testing, along with the costs and
consequences of incorrect diagnosis.
A model was developed to estimate the cost effectiveness of serological test

strategies for detecting coeliac disease in patients presenting with signs and
symptoms. The model was built and analysed using TreeAge Pro 2007 Suite
(TreeAge software) and adopted a lifetime horizon. Several test strategies
were examined and compared with a no-test strategy (see table 8). The
structure of the decision tree was agreed with the GDG and was also informed
by previous cost-effectiveness studies. Patients accrued costs and utilities
depending on their pathway through the model. At the end of the decision
tree, patients entered a Markov model with states reflecting their eventual
diagnosis (that is, diagnosed as having coeliac disease, no diagnosis of

coeliac disease or undiagnosed coeliac disease) and picked up costs and
utilities linked with these states until death.
Serological tests examined in the model were the IgA tTGA and the IgA EMA
tests. These were analysed alone and in combination. In all cases, tests were
followed by biopsy to confirm positive results. Strategies with separate IgA
deficiency testing were also included. For completeness a no-test strategy
and a biopsy-only strategy were included.
Table 8 List of strategies in the model

Strategy number Description
1 IgA tTGA test, followed by biopsy in the case of a positive result
2 IgA EMA test, followed by biopsy in the case of a positive result
3 IgA tTGA then IgA EMA in a two-step strategy, followed by a
biopsy if IgA tTGA was positive then IgA EMA was positive
4 IgA tTGA and IgA EMA in combination, followed by a biopsy if
both tests were positive
5 IgA tTGA and IgA EMA in combination, followed by a biopsy if
either test was positive
6 IgA tTGA test followed by IgA deficiency test, and biopsy in the
case of a positive result or IgA deficiency
7 IgA EMA test followed by IgA deficiency test, and biopsy in the
case of a positive result or IgA deficiency
8 Biopsy all patients
9 No test for any patients
The clinical systematic review identified several studies on the sensitivity and
specificity of serological tests for coeliac disease. There was no evidence
synthesis for these studies, for reasons explained in appendix 6.4. Therefore
data on sensitivity and specificity were taken from a UK-based, good quality
study (Hopper et al. 2008). This evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of
several serological test strategies in 2000 patients who had been referred for
biopsy. The results of the study were confirmed by biopsy. This study was
considered to provide the best available evidence on diagnostic accuracy to
inform the base-case economic model.

The model takes into account the effect on quality of life of having an
endoscopy and biopsy, having coeliac disease, having undiagnosed coeliac
disease and of being on a gluten-free diet, all based on the literature review of
quality of life evidence. It also takes into account any possible increased
mortality resulting from undiagnosed coeliac disease, taken from a review of
the literature on mortality and coeliac disease. Adherence to a gluten-free diet
was taken into account in the model.
The model included the following costs: serological tests, endoscopy and
biopsy, gluten-free diet and follow-up to the NHS, and delayed diagnosis.
Costs were based on national-level costs from published sources, calculations
and data provided by laboratories. Costs were considered from an NHS and
personal social services (PSS) perspective as stated in the guideline scope.
The cost of serological testing is difficult to estimate because there is no
national tariff available. Cost of serological tests can vary greatly depending
on who orders the tests and how they are carried out. Economies of scale are
also realised when using diagnostic equipment, so the cost may differ
depending on the volume of tests carried out by the laboratory. For the
present analysis, the costs of serological tests have been estimated from data
provided by two laboratories in the UK following communication with a GDG
member. It is important to note that the methods laboratories use when
charging for serological tests means that the cost of two tests or combination
testing is often only marginally more expensive than a single test. This is
because most laboratories charge a fixed fee for coeliac disease testing,
based on an average of all tests for coeliac disease including the cost for
tTGA plus any additional tests needed.
Given this potential uncertainty on how laboratories charge, extensive

sensitivity analysis was carried out on this variable.
Full details of the model, including results and sensitivity analysis, are
presented in appendix 6.5.
The model suggests that the no-test strategy is both the least effective
strategy (that is, produces the least number of QALYs) and the least costly

strategy. Although no testing costs are involved, people who have
undiagnosed coeliac disease also have a lower quality of life and increased
costs resulting from undiagnosed coeliac disease.
Moving from no testing to any of the testing strategies examined appears to

be cost effective. Comparing the incremental costs and benefits of the testing
strategies with a common comparator (no testing), the model indicates that
there is very little difference between the strategies in terms of cost
effectiveness or clinical effectiveness. This is because of the similarity in the
diagnostic accuracy of these strategies and in the cost of the tests. These
small differences mean that an incremental analysis of the strategies would
not give meaningful results. The test strategies all have incremental cost-
effectiveness ratios between £4000 to £5300 per QALY gained compared with
no testing, which is well within acceptable levels of cost-effectiveness
thresholds for approval by NICE.
Because all the testing strategies have similar sensitivity and specificity, the
incremental differences in QALYs between them are very small. However, the
biopsy-only strategy is the most expensive, costing about £380 more than the
next most expensive strategy. Therefore, although a biopsy-only strategy may
be preferable to a no-test strategy those strategies that include serological
tests before confirmatory biopsy for positive results are still more cost effective
than the biopsy-only strategy
Combinations of EMA and tTGA tests had sensitivity and specificity similar to
the individual test strategies. The method of costing the test strategies did not
significantly affect the results. Therefore carrying out any of the test strategies
remains cost effective compared to no testing. Sensitivity analysis was carried
out to evaluate the effect of charging separately for these tests at high cost.
Even when additive fees are considered, the cost effectiveness is still similar
between the strategies because the costs of the tests are relatively low
compared with the cost and disutility of undiagnosed coeliac disease.
In sensitivity analysis, results were shown to be affected by the increase in

quality of life for treated coeliac disease compared with untreated coeliac

disease. However, even in the extreme case that the utility of treated and
untreated coeliac disease are equal, serological testing remains cost effective
compared with no testing. This is because there is still a difference between
the utility of having coeliac disease (whether treated or untreated) compared
with the utility of not having coeliac disease.
The model is also sensitive to the cost of delayed diagnosis. A threshold

analysis was carried out on this parameter because of the uncertainty around
the additional resources used by people who have coeliac disease but have
not yet been diagnosed. When the cost is relatively low, testing for coeliac
disease is a cost-effective intervention; as the cost of this parameter
increases, testing becomes even more cost effective and specifically, when
the cost of undiagnosed coeliac disease becomes as high as £260 per person
per year, the testing strategies become cost saving.
One-way sensitivity analysis on the most uncertain parameters in the model

showed that the model seems robust to variations in most of the parameter
inputs.
Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was also carried out. Distributions were added
to the sensitivity and specificity of each of the test strategies, the prevalence
of coeliac disease in the population of interest and the cost of delayed
diagnosis. At a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained (the lower end of the
threshold considered acceptable by NICE), the probability of the test
strategies being cost effective was 100%. At around £6000 per QALY gained,
the probability of each of the strategies becoming cost effective approached
100%.
Full details of the model including results, and all sensitivity analyses, are
presented in appendix 6.5.

The GDG discussed the evidence and agreed the evidence statements
relating to the information needs and use of serological tests in the diagnostic

process for coeliac disease and developed recommendations. This discussion
is summarised here:
• The GDG discussed the importance of stressing the need to continue a

gluten-containing diet until coeliac disease is diagnosed or excluded using
intestinal biopsy. The need to provide clear information relating to what
coeliac disease is and the place of serological tests in this process was
also identified and recommendations developed. The GDG noted the
importance of clear information to everyone, but also highlighted the
additional support that may be needed by people who have a coexisting
condition, such as type 1 diabetes.
• The GDG debated the lack of evidence about the amount of gluten needed
in the gluten-containing diet to maximise the diagnostic potential of the
serological tests and intestinal biopsy. The GDG agreed that this amount
was not known, so it developed a recommendation that acknowledged the
lack of evidence and used the GDG experience and expertise to give a
guide to the amount of gluten to be eaten.
• The GDG also considered that people with suspected coeliac disease who
had already begun to exclude gluten from their diet may be reluctant or
unable to re-commence a gluten-containing diet. The GDG considered that
the support and expertise of a gastrointestinal specialist should be
recommended in these situations.
• The GDG discussed the pooled results and studies included in the
serological tests review and agreed that the gliadin-based tests had both
lower sensitivity and lower specificity. It therefore agreed to recommend
that gliadin-based tests are not used.
• The GDG considered from the clinical evidence and the economic model
that the serological test of choice is IgA tTGA as a first test, and where the
results are equivocal then IgA EMA testing should be used. Both the
individual tests and combination testing are clinically effective and cost
effective compared with no testing. The GDG considered that IgA tTGA
should also be recommended as first choice for ease of use and quality
assurance factors.

• The GDG recognised that the deamidated gliadin tests and point-of-care
tests or self tests may be of use in the future, but noted that they cannot be
recommended yet because the evidence for them is limited. The GDG also
discussed the need for a recommendation that advises people who may
have used self tests to discuss the results with healthcare professionals,
and that if coeliac disease is suspected patients should have laboratory-
based serological tests.
• The GDG discussed the evidence relating to the use of IgA tTGA in people
with liver disease. It agreed that, although the available evidence was
limited, the possibility of false positive results in people with liver disease
may be a concern.
• The GDG discussed the use of HLA DQ2 and DQ8 testing and noted that
because DQ2 or DQ8 is present in around one quarter of the UK
population, a positive test for it is of limited value in the diagnosis of coeliac
disease. However, it noted the potential use of a negative result in a
specialist setting where serology and biopsy have proven inconclusive.
• The GDG noted the need for all serological testing to be undertaken at an
accredited laboratory, and developed a recommendation to reflect this.
• The GDG noted the lack of evidence regarding the possibility of repeat
serological testing for coeliac disease, specifically in people with coexisting
conditions for whom serological testing has been recommended (including
type 1 diabetes and autoimmune thyroid disease). It was felt, with the lack
of evidence and without expert consensus, that a recommendation on
repeat testing could not be made. A research recommendation in this area
was developed.
Inform people (and their parents or carers, as appropriate) that any testing
for coeliac disease is accurate only if the person continues to follow a
gluten-containing diet during the diagnostic process (serological tests and
biopsy if required).

Inform people that they should not start a gluten-free diet until diagnosis is
confirmed by intestinal biopsy, even if a self-test or other serological test is
positive.
Inform people that when they are following a normal diet (containing gluten)
they should eat some gluten (for example, bread, chapattis, pasta, biscuits,
or cakes) in more than one meal every day for a minimum of 6 weeks
before testing; however, it is not possible to say exactly how much gluten
they should eat.
If a person is reluctant or unable to reintroduce gluten into their diet before
testing:
• refer them to a gastrointestinal specialist and

• inform them that it may be difficult to confirm a diagnosis of coeliac
disease on intestinal biopsy, and that this may have implications for the
prescribing of gluten-free foods.
Inform people who are considering, or have undertaken, self-testing for
coeliac disease (and their parents or carers) that any result from self-
testing needs to be discussed with a healthcare professional and confirmed
by laboratory-based tests.

Before seeking consent to take blood for serological tests, explain:
• what coeliac disease is

• that serological tests do not diagnose coeliac disease, but indicate
whether further testing is needed
• the implications of a positive test (including referral for intestinal biopsy
and implications for other family members)
• the implications of a negative test (that coeliac disease is unlikely but it
could be present or could arise in the future).
Inform people and their parents or carers that a delayed diagnosis of
coeliac disease, or undiagnosed coeliac disease, can result in:
• continuing ill health

• long-term complications, including osteoporosis and increased fracture
risk, unfavourable pregnancy outcomes and a modest increased risk of
intestinal malignancy
• growth failure, delayed puberty and dental problems (in children).
All tests should be undertaken in laboratories with clinical pathology
accreditation (CPA).
Do not use immunoglobulin G (IgG) or immunoglobulin A (IgA) anti-gliadin
antibody (AGA) tests in the diagnosis of coeliac disease.
Do not use of self-tests and/or point-of-care tests for coeliac disease as a
substitute for laboratory-based testing.

When clinicians request serology, laboratories should:
• use IgA tissue transglutaminase (tTGA) as the first choice test

• use IgA endomysial antibodies (EMA) testing if the result of the tTGA
test is equivocal
• check for IgA deficiency if the serology is negative 4
• use IgG tTGA and/or IgG EMA serological tests for people with
confirmed IgA deficiency
• communicate the results clearly in terms of values, interpretation and
recommended action.
Do not use human leukocyte antigen (HLA) DQ2/DQ8 testing in the initial
diagnosis of coeliac disease. (However, its high negative predictive value
may be of use to gastrointestinal specialists in specific clinical situations.)
Offer referral to a gastrointestinal specialist for intestinal biopsy to confirm
or exclude coeliac disease to people with positive serological results from
any tTGA or EMA test.
If serology tests are negative but coeliac disease is still clinically suspected,
offer referral to a gastrointestinal specialist for further assessment.
4
Investigation for IgA deficiency should be done when the laboratory detects a low optical
density (OD) on IgA tTGA test, very low IgA tTGA results or low background on IgA EMA test.

2.6 Research recommendations
• Dietary assessment of gluten content of diet before serological testing:
what is the minimum gluten dietary content necessary for the optimal
accuracy of serological tests and intestinal biopsy for the diagnosis of
coeliac disease?
− There is no robust evidence on how much gluten people should include
in their diet when undergoing testing for coeliac disease. Different
definitions are used, based on a single study and expert opinion, and
this can lead to confusion among patients and clinicians. Although it is
evident that a gluten-containing diet for a sustained period is necessary
to ensure that serological test results are as accurate as possible and
that intestinal biopsy results are as clear as possible, the amount of
gluten and the period of intake needed are unknown. Research is
needed on how serological tests and intestinal biopsy accuracies are
associated with gluten intake in order to define the minimum level of
gluten and period of intake for adults and children with suspected coeliac
disease.
• How many people with undiagnosed coeliac disease are misdiagnosed as
having other conditions, and what are the clinical and cost implications of
this?
− People with coeliac disease often have significant health problems that
resolve with correct diagnosis and treatment. If coeliac disease is
undiagnosed, or misdiagnosed as another condition, health problems
continue, resulting in the use of inappropriate interventions and
resources, such as visits to GPs or outpatient clinics. Misdiagnosis can
also limit further investigation (and thus correct diagnosis) and the health
problems continue or increase, with a corresponding effect on the
person’s quality of life. There are no reliable data on the extent to which
coeliac disease is misdiagnosed in adults and children; high-quality
population-based studies are needed to assess the associated clinical
outcomes and costs in adults and children with undiagnosed coeliac
disease.

• Should repeat serological testing for coeliac disease be performed, and if
so, how often?
− Currently, serological tests (tTGA and EMA) for coeliac disease are both
relatively sensitive and specific, with low rates of false-negative results. It
is not clear whether coeliac disease develops over time (that is, an
individual can be tested for coeliac disease at one point in time and be
true-negative and then tested at a later point in time, and be true-
positive). There is a lack of evidence on the need for repeat testing.
Studies are needed to determine whether serological tests should be
repeated if the initial results are negative and there is no high clinical
suspicion of coeliac disease, and if so, when and how often they should
be repeated.
• Does adherence to a gluten free diet improve diabetes-related outcomes in
people with coeliac disease and type 1 diabetes?
− There is some evidence that glycaemic control is improved in people
with type 1 diabetes who have coeliac disease and follow a gluten-free
diet, but this evidence is not conclusive. Good quality, longitudinal cohort
studies are needed to determine whether adherence to a gluten-free diet
improves diabetes-related outcomes in adults and children with newly-
diagnosed type 1 diabetes and coeliac disease. Such outcomes should
include blood glucose control, cardiovascular risk factors (including
weight), diabetic-related complications, and health-related quality of life.
• Is the prevalence of coeliac disease higher in adults and children with
autism than in the general population?
− There is no conclusive evidence on the prevalence of coeliac disease in
people with autism. Anecdotally, higher rates of coeliac disease are seen
in people with autism, and when diagnosed, adherence to a gluten-free
diet improves both gastrointestinal symptoms and behavioural problems.
Research is needed to determine the prevalence of coeliac disease in
people with autism and whether any behavioural problems improve
following diagnosis.
• What are the long-term effects of undiagnosed coeliac disease?

− Undiagnosed coeliac disease is associated with several long-term
complications, including osteoporosis and some malignancies. Long-
term follow-up studies are needed to determine the long-term
complications associated with undiagnosed coeliac disease in adults and
children, and the effect of diagnosis of coeliac disease and adherence to
a gluten-free diet on these complications.
• How reliable are serological tests compared with intestinal biopsy in
detecting early coeliac disease?
− Evidence of the presence of coeliac disease can be suggested by the
finding of highly specific and sensitive antibodies to tissue
transglutaminase and to endomysium. Confirmation of the presence of
intestinal damage revealed by the histological examination of small-
intestinal biopsies remains the traditional method of making the
diagnosis. The sensitivity of this investigation has rarely, if ever, been
formally investigated. With increased use of serological tests for coeliac
disease it has become evident that some people with positive coeliac
autoantibodies have apparently normal small-intestinal histology. Some
such people are, nonetheless, symptomatic and have gluten-sensitive
malabsorption. Early detection of coeliac disease may be important to
prevent long-term complications, Therefore longitudinal studies are
needed to determine whether serological markers are superior and can
reliably detect early coeliac disease before intestinal damage occurs.
3 References, glossary and abbreviations
3.1 References
Abrams JA, Brar P, Diamond B, et al. (2006) Utility in clinical practice of
immunoglobulin A anti-tissue transglutaminase antibody for the diagnosis of
celiac disease. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 4: 726–30
Agardh D (2007) Antibodies against synthetic deamidated gliadin peptides

and tissue transglutaminase for the identification of childhood celiac disease.
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 5: 1276–81

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (2004) Evidence
Report/Technology Assessment No. 104 Celiac Disease. AHRQ Publication
No. 04-E029-2
Atkinson K, Tokmakajian S, Watson W et al. (1997) Evaluation of the

endomysial antibody for celiac disease: operating properties and associated
cost implications in clinical practice. Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology 11:
673–7
Bdioui F, Sakly N, Hassine M et al. (2006) Prevalence of celiac disease in

Tunisian blood donors. Gastroenterologie Clinique et Biologique 30: 33–6
Ben Hariz M, Kallel-Sellami M, Kallel L et al. (2007) Prevalence of celiac

disease in Tunisia: mass-screening study in schoolchildren. European Journal
of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 19: 687–94
Biagi F, Campanella J, Bianchi PI, et al. (2008) The incidence of coeliac

disease in adult first degree relatives. Digestive and Liver Disease 40: 97–100
Bizzaro N, Tampoia M, Villalta D, et al. (2006) Low specificity of anti-tissue

transglutaminase antibodies in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. Journal
of Clinical Laboratory Analysis 20: 184–9
Bingley PJ, Williams AJK, Norcross AJ, et al. (2004) Undiagnosed coeliac
disease at age seven: Population based prospective birth cohort study. British
Medical Journal 328: 322–3
Bonamico M, Mariani P, Danesi HM, et al. (2001) Prevalence and clinical

picture of celiac disease in Italian Down syndrome patients: a multicenter
study. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 33: 139–43
Bonamico M, Pasquino AM, Mariani P, et al. (2002) Prevalence and clinical

picture of celiac disease in Turner syndrome. Journal of Clinical
Endocrinology and Metabolism 87: 5495–8
Bottaro G, Failla P, Rotolo N, et al. (1993) Changes in coeliac disease

behaviour over the years. Acta Paediatrica 82: 566–8

Bottaro G, Cataldo F, Rotolo N, et al. (1999) The clinical pattern of
subclinical/silent celiac disease: an analysis on 1026 consecutive cases.
American Journal of Gastroenterology 94: 691–6
Brandimarte G, Tursi A, Giorgetti GM (2002) Changing trends in clinical form

of celiac disease. Which is now the main form of celiac disease in clinical
practice? Minerva Gastroenterologica e Dietologica 48: 121–30
Carroccio A, Di Prima L, Pirrone G, et al. (2006) Anti-transglutaminase

antibody assay of the culture medium of intestinal biopsy specimens can
improve the accuracy of celiac disease diagnosis. Clinical Chemistry 52:
1175–80
Castano L, Blarduni E, Ortiz L, et al. (2004) Prospective population screening

for celiac disease: high prevalence in the first 3 years of life. Journal of
Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 39: 80–4
Collin P, Reunala T, Pukkala E, et al. (1994) Coeliac disease – associated

disorders and survival. Gut 35: 1215–8
Collin P, Vilska S, Heinonen PK, et al. (1996) Infertility and coeliac disease.
Gut 39: 382–4
Cronin CC, Jackson LM, Feighery C, et al. (1998) Coeliac disease and
epilepsy. Qjm 91: 303–8
Del Rosario MA, Fitzgerald JF, Chong SK, et al. (1998) Further studies of anti-
endomysium and anti-gliadin antibodies in patients with suspected celiac
disease. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 27: 191–5
Dickey W, McMillan SA, McCrum EE, et al. (1997) Association between

serum levels of total IgA and IgA class endomysial and antigliadin antibodies:
implications for coeliac disease screening. European Journal of
Gastroenterology and Hepatology 9: 559–62
Dorn SD, Matchar DB (2008) Cost-effectiveness analysis of strategies for

diagnosing celiac disease. Digestive Diseases and Sciences 53: 680–8

Dretzke J, Cummins C, Sandercock J, et al. (2008) Autoantibody testing in
children with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes mellitus. Health Technology
Assessment (Winchester, England) 8: iii–ix
Elfström P, Montgomery SM, Kämpe O, et al. (2007) Risk of primary adrenal

insufficiency in patients with celiac disease. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology
and Metabolism 92: 3595–8
Emami MH (2008) Diagnostic accuracy of IgA anti-tissue transglutaminase in

patients suspected of having coeliac disease in Iran. Journal of
Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases 17: 141–6
Ertekin V, Selimoglu MA, Kardas F, et al. (2005) Prevalence of celiac disease

in Turkish children. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology 39: 689–91
Farre C, Domingo-Domenech E, Font R, et al. (2004) Celiac disease and

lymphoma risk: a multicentric case–control study in Spain. Digestive Diseases
and Sciences 9: 408–12
Ferre-Lopez S, Ribes-Koninckx C, Genzor C, et al. (2004)

Immunochromatographic sticks for tissue transglutaminase and antigliadin
antibody screening in celiac disease. Clinical Gastroenterology and
Hepatology 2: 480–4
Francis J, Carty JE, Scott BB (2002) The prevalence of coeliac disease in

rheumatoid arthritis. European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology
14: 1355–6
Fraser JS, King AL, Ellis HJ, et al. (2006) An algorithm for family screening for
coeliac disease. World Journal of Gastroenterology 12: 7805–9
Frustaci A, Cuoco L, Chimenti C, et al. (2002) Celiac disease associated with

autoimmune myocarditis. Circulation 105: 2611–8
Garampazzi A, Rapa A, Mura S, et al. (2007) Clinical pattern of celiac disease

is still changing. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 45: 611–4

George EK, Hertzberger-Ten Cate R, Suijlekom-Smit LW, et al. (1996)
Juvenile chronic arthritis and coeliac disease in The Netherlands. Clinical and
Experimental Rheumatology 14: 571–5
Germenis AE, Yiannaki EE, Zachou K, et al. (2005) Prevalence and clinical
significance of immunoglobulin A antibodies against tissue transglutaminase
in patients with diverse chronic liver diseases. Clinical and Diagnostic
Laboratory Immunology 12: 941–8
Goldacre MJ, Wotton CJ, Seagroatt V, et al. (2004) Cancers and immune
related diseases associated with Down's syndrome: a record linkage study.
Archives of Disease in Childhood 89: 1014–8
Gomez JC, Selvaggio GS, Viola M, et al. (2001) Prevalence of celiac disease
in Argentina: screening of an adult population in the La Plata area. American
Journal of Gastroenterology 96: 2700–4
Greco L, Veneziano A, Di Donato L, et al. (2004) Undiagnosed coeliac

disease does not appear to be associated with unfavourable outcome of
pregnancy. Gut 53: 149–51
Green PHR, Fleischauer AT, Bhagat G, et al. (2003) Risk of malignancy in

patients with celiac disease. American Journal of Medicine 115: 191–5
Guliter S, Yakaryilmaz F, Ozkurt Z, et al. (2007) Prevalence of coeliac disease

in patients with autoimmune thyroiditis in a Turkish population. World Journal
of Gastroenterology 13: 1599–601
Harewood GC, Murray JA (2001) Diagnostic approach to a patient with

suspected celiac disease: a cost analysis. Digestive Diseases and Sciences
46: 2510–4
Hopper AD, Hadjivassiliou M, Hurlstone DP, et al. (2008) What is the role of
serologic testing in celiac disease? A prospective, biopsy-confirmed study with
economic analysis. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 6: 314–20

Imanzadeh F, Sayyari AA, Yaghoobi M, et al. (2005) Celiac disease in
children with diarrhea is more frequent than previously suspected. Journal of
Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 40: 309–11
Johnston SD, McMillan SA, Collins JS, et al. (2003) A comparison of

antibodies to tissue transglutaminase with conventional serological tests in the
diagnosis of coeliac disease. European Journal of Gastroenterology and
Karnam US, Felder LR, Raskin JB (2004) Prevalence of occult celiac disease
in patients with iron-deficiency anemia: a prospective study. Southern Medical
Journal 97: 30–4
Kocna P, Vanickova Z, Perusicova J, et al. (2002) Tissue transglutaminase-

serology markers for coeliac disease. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory
Medicine 40: 485–92
Korponay-Szabo IR, Kovacs JB, Czinner A, et al. (1999) High prevalence of

silent celiac disease in preschool children screened with IgA/IgG
antiendomysium antibodies. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and
Nutrition 28: 26–30
Leeds JS, Sanders DS (2007) Is there an association between coeliac

disease and irritable bowel syndrome? Gut 56: 1326–7
Lenhardt A, Plebani A, Marchetti F, et al. (2004) Role of human-tissue

transglutaminase IgG and anti-gliadin IgG antibodies in the diagnosis of
coeliac disease in patients with selective immunoglobulin A deficiency.
Digestive and Liver Disease 36: 730–4
Lepore L, Martelossi S, Pennesi M, et al. (1996) Prevalence of celiac disease

in patients with juvenile chronic arthritis. Journal of Pediatrics 129: 311–3
Liu E, Bao F, Barriga K, et al. (2003) Fluctuating transglutaminase

autoantibodies are related to histologic features of celiac disease. Clinical

Liu E, Li M, Bao F, et al. (2005) Need for quantitative assessment of
transglutaminase autoantibodies for celiac disease in screening-identified
children. Journal of Pediatrics 146: 494–9
Ludvigsson JF, Montgomery SM, Ekbom A (2005) Celiac disease and risk of
adverse fetal outcome: a population-based cohort study. Gastroenterology
129: 454–63
Ludvigsson JF, Wahlstrom J, Grunewald J, et al. (2007a) Coeliac disease and

risk of sarcoidosis. Sarcoidosis Vasculitis and Diffuse Lung Diseases 24: 121–
6
Ludvigsson JF, Michaelsson K, Ekbom A, et al. (2007) Coeliac disease and

the risk of fractures – a general population-based cohort study. Alimentary
Pharmacology and Therapeutics 25: 273–85.
Ludvigsson JF, Olsson T, Ekbom A, et al. (2007b) A population-based study

of coeliac disease, neurodegenerative and neuroinflammatory diseases.
Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 25: 1317–27
Ludvigsson JF, Reutfors J, Osby U, et al. (2007c) Coeliac disease and risk of
mood disorders – a general population-based cohort study. Journal of
Affective Disorders 99: 117–26
Ludvigsson JF, Elfstrom P, Broom EU, et al. (2007d) Celiac disease and risk
of liver disease: a general population-based study. Clinical Gastroenterology
and Hepatology 5: 63–9
Ludvigsson JF, Wahlstrom J, Grunewald J, et al. (2007e) Coeliac disease and

risk of tuberculosis: a population based cohort study. Thorax 62: 23–8
Ludvigsson JF, Olen O, Bell M, et al. (2008) Coeliac disease and risk of
sepsis. Gut 57: 1074–80
Mein SM, Ladabaum U (2004) Serological testing for coeliac disease in

patients with symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome: a cost-effectiveness
analysis. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 19: 1199–210

Melo SB, Fernandes MI, Peres LC, et al. (2006) Prevalence and demographic
characteristics of celiac disease among blood donors in Ribeirao Preto, State
of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Digestive Diseases and Sciences 51: 1020–5
Meloni GF, Dessole S, Vargiu N, et al. (1999) The prevalence of coeliac

disease in infertility. Human Reproduction 14: 2759–61
Niveloni S, Sugai E, Cabanne A, et al. (2007) Antibodies against synthetic

deamidated gliadin peptides as predictors of celiac disease: prospective
assessment in an adult population with a high pretest probability of disease.
Clinical Chemistry 53: 2186–92
Olen O, Montgomery SM, Elinder G (2008) Increased risk of immune

thrombocytopenic purpura among inpatients with coeliac disease.
Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 43: 416–22
Oliveira RP, Sdepanian VL, Barreto JA, et al. (2007) High prevalence of celiac
disease in Brazilian blood donor volunteers based on screening by IgA
antitissue transglutaminase antibody. European Journal of Gastroenterology
and Hepatology 19: 43–9
Pereira MA, Ortiz-Agostinho CL, Nishitokukado I, et al. (2006) Prevalence of

celiac disease in an urban area of Brazil with predominantly European
ancestry. World Journal of Gastroenterology 12: 6546–50
Picarelli A, Sabbatella L, Di Tola M, et al. (2005) Anti-endomysial antibody of

IgG1 isotype detection strongly increases the prevalence of coeliac disease in
patients affected by type I diabetes mellitus. Clinical and Experimental
Immunology 142: 111–5
Pratesi R, Gandolfi L, Martins RC, et al. (2003) Is the prevalence of celiac

disease increased among epileptic patients? Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria
61: 330–4
Rampertab SD, Pooran N, Brar P, et al. (2006) Trends in the presentation of

celiac disease. American Journal of Medicine 119: 355–14

Reeves GE, Squance ML, Duggan AE, et al. (2006) Diagnostic accuracy of
coeliac serological tests: a prospective study. European Journal of
Roka V, Potamianos SP, Kapsoritakis AN, et al. (2007) Prevalence of coeliac

disease in the adult population of central Greece. European Journal of
Rostami K, Kerckhaert J, Tiemessen R, et al. (1999) Sensitivity of

antiendomysium and antigliadin antibodies in untreated celiac disease:
disappointing in clinical practice. American Journal of Gastroenterology 94:
888–94
Salardi S, Volta U, Zucchini S, et al. (2008) Prevalence of celiac disease in

children with type 1 diabetes mellitus increased in the mid-1990s: an 18-year
longitudinal study based on anti-endomysial antibodies. Journal of Pediatric
Gastroenterology and Nutrition 46: 612–4
Sanders DS, Hopper AD, Azmy IA, et al. (2005) Association of adult celiac
disease with surgical abdominal pain: a case-control study in patients referred
to secondary care. Annals of Surgery 242: 201–7
Sategna-Guidetti C, Bruno M, Mazza E, et al. (1998) Autoimmune thyroid

diseases and coeliac disease. European Journal of Gastroenterology and
Shahbazkhani B, Malekzadeh R, Sotoudeh M, et al. (2003) High prevalence

of coeliac disease in apparently healthy Iranian blood donors. European
Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 15: 475–8
Shamir R, Hernell O, Leshno M (2006) Cost-effectiveness analysis of

screening for celiac disease in the adult population. Medical Decision Making
26: 282–93
Silano M, Volta U, Mecchia AM, et al. (2007) Delayed diagnosis of coeliac

disease increases cancer risk. BMC Gastroenterology 7: 8

Spiegel BM, DeRosa VP, Gralnek IM, et al. (2004) Testing for celiac sprue in
irritable bowel syndrome with predominant diarrhea: a cost-effectiveness
analysis. Gastroenterology 126: 1721–32
Swigonski NL, Kuhlenschmidt HL, Bull MJ, et al. (2006) Screening for celiac
disease in asymptomatic children with Down syndrome: cost-effectiveness of
preventing lymphoma. Pediatrics 118: 594–602
Szaflarska-Szczepanik A, Czerwionka-Szaflarska M (2001) The frequency of

occurrence and clinical picture of celiac disease in the parents of children with
the disease. Medical Science Monitor 7: 971–6
Szodoray P, Barta Z, Lakos G, et al. (2004) Coeliac disease in Sjögren's

syndrome – a study of 111 Hungarian patients. Rheumatology International
24: 278–82
Thevenot T, Denis J, Jouannaud V, et al. (2007) Coeliac disease in chronic

hepatitis C: a French multicentre prospective study. Alimentary Pharmacology
and Therapeutics 26: 1209–16
Vestergaard P, Mosekilde L. (2002) Fracture risk in patients with celiac

Disease, Crohn's disease, and ulcerative colitis: a nationwide follow-up study
of 16,416 patients in Denmark. American Journal of Epidemiology 156: 1–10
Vilppula A, Collin P, Maki M, et al. (2008) Undetected coeliac disease in the

elderly: a biopsy-proven population-based study. Digestive and Liver Disease
40: 809–13
Viola L, Lugli L, Melegari A, et al. (2004) Antitransglutaminase enzyme-linked

immune-adsorbed assay in coeliac disease diagnosis: evaluation of a
diagnostic algorithm. Pediatria Medica e Chirurgica 26: 126–31
Yagil Y, Goldenberg I, Arnon R, et al. (2005) Serologic testing for celiac

disease in young adults – a cost-effect analysis. Digestive Diseases and
Sciences 50: 796–805

3.2 Glossary
2 x 2 table
A table that summarises diagnostic information (true and false positives and
negatives) and allows for further interpretation of the data such as sensitivity,
specificity, forest plots and ROC curves.
Case–control study
Comparative observational study in which the investigator selects people who
have experienced an event (for example, developed a disease) and others
who have not (controls), and then collects data to determine previous
exposure to a possible cause.
Cohort study
An observational study in which a defined group of people (the cohort) is
followed over time. Outcomes are compared in subsets of the cohort who
were exposed or not exposed (or exposed at different levels) to an
intervention or other factor of interest.
Confidence interval
The range within which the ‘true' values (for example, size of effect of an
intervention) are expected to lie with a given degree of certainty (for example,
95% or 99%). (Note: confidence intervals represent the probability of random
errors, but not systematic errors or bias).
Cost-effectiveness analysis
An economic evaluation that compares alternative options for a specific
patient group, looking at a single effectiveness dimension measured in a non-
monetary (natural) unit. It expresses the result in the form of an incremental
(or average or marginal) cost-effectiveness ratio.
Cost–utility analysis
An economic evaluation that compares alternative options for a specific
patient group, looking at a single effectiveness dimension measured in a non-
monetary (natural) unit that also takes quality of life into account. It expresses
the result in the form of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY)
gained.

Economic evaluation
Technique developed to assess both costs and consequences of alternative
health strategies and to provide a decision-making framework.
False negative
A negative result in a diagnostic test when the person being tested does
possess the attribute for which the test is conducted.
False positive
A positive result in a diagnostic result when the person being tested does not
possess the attribute for which the test is conducted.
Generalisability
The degree to which the results of a study or systematic review can be
extrapolated to other circumstances.
Heterogeneity
A term used to illustrate the variability or differences among studies. High
heterogeneity indicates greater differences.
Negative predictive value

The proportion of people with negative test results who do not have the
disease.
Odds ratio
A measure of treatment effectiveness. The likelihood of an event happening in
the intervention group, divided by the likelihood of it happening in the control
group. The ‘odds ratio’ is the ratio of non-events to events.
Positive predictive value

The proportion of people with a positive test result who actually have the
disease.
Quality-adjusted life year (QALY)

A statistical measure, representing 1 year of life, with full quality of life.

Randomised controlled trial (RCT)
A form of clinical trial to assess the effectiveness of medicines or procedures,
in which participants are randomly assigned to receive a treatment or a
placebo. Considered reliable because it tends not to be biased.
Reference standard
An agreed standard, for example for a test or treatment, against which other
interventions can be compared.
Relative risk
Also known as risk ratio; the ratio of risk in the intervention group to the risk in
the control group. The risk (proportion, probability or rate) is the ratio of people
with an event in a group to the total number of people in the group. A relative
risk (RR) of 1 indicates no difference between the groups being compared.
Sensitivity (of a test)

The proportion of people classified as positive by the reference standard who
are correctly identified by the study test.
Specificity (of a test)

The proportion of people classified as negative by the reference standard who
are correctly identified by the study test.
True negative
A negative result in a diagnostic test, when the person does not possess the
attribute for which the test is conducted.
True positive
A positive result in a diagnostic test, when the person does possess the
attribute for which the test is conducted.
Utility
A measure of the strength of a person's preference for a specific health state
in relation to alternative health states. The utility scale assigns numerical
values on a scale of 0 (death) to 1 (optimal or 'perfect' health). Health states
can be considered worse than death and thus have a negative value.
Estimates of utility – ideally based on the use of standardised and validated

generic instruments such as EQ-5D – are critical in the calculation of health-
related quality of life weights used in QALYs.
3.3 Abbreviations
AGA Anti-gliadin antibodies
CI Confidence interval
EMA Anti-endomysial antibodies
IgA Immunoglobulin A
IgG Immunoglobulin G
NPV Negative predictive value
OR Odds ratio
PPV Positive predictive value
QALY Quality-adjusted life year
RCT Randomised controlled trial
RR Relative risk
SD Standard deviation
tTGA Anti tissue transglutaminase antibodies
4 Methods
4.1 Aim and scope of the guideline
4.1.1 Scope
NICE guidelines are developed in accordance with a scope that defines what
the guideline will and will not cover (see appendix 1). The scope of this
guideline is available from www.nice.org.uk/CG86
The aim of this guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations to

guide healthcare professionals in the recognition and assessment of coeliac
disease in children and adults.
4.2 Development methods

This section sets out in detail the methods used to generate the
recommendations for clinical practice that are presented in the previous
chapters of this guideline. The methods used to develop the

recommendations are in accordance with those set out by NICE in ‘The
guidelines manual' (2009; available from www.nice.org.uk).
4.2.1 Developing the guideline scope

The scope for this guideline defined the areas the guideline would and would
not cover. It was prepared by the Short Clinical Guidelines Technical Team in
consultation with relevant literature and following a workshop with clinical
experts and patient groups. The scope was also refined following public
consultation.
4.2.2 Forming and running the Short Clinical Guideline

Development Group
The short clinical guideline on recognition and assessment of coeliac disease
was developed by a Guideline Development Group consisting of 10 members,
including healthcare professional and patient/carer members who were
recruited through open advertisement, and the Short Clinical Guidelines
Technical Team.
4.2.3 Developing key clinical questions

The key clinical questions were refined from the scope and formed the starting
point for the subsequent evidence reviews and facilitated the development of
recommendations by the Guideline Development Group. The Guideline
Development Group and Short Clinical Guidelines Technical Team agreed
appropriate review parameters (inclusion and exclusion criteria) for each
question or topic area. The full list of key clinical questions is given in
appendix 6.2.
4.2.4 Developing recommendations

For each key question, recommendations were derived from the clinical- and
cost-effectiveness evidence reviews and the economic model developed for
this guideline, which were presented to and discussed, alongside their expert
opinion, by the Guideline Development Group.

4.2.5 Literature search
The evidence reviews used to develop the guideline recommendations were
underpinned by systematic literature searches, following the methods
described in ‘The guidelines manual' (2009). The purpose of systematically
searching the literature is to attempt to comprehensively identify the published
evidence to answer the key clinical questions developed by the Guideline
Development Group and Short Clinical Guidelines Technical Team.
The search strategies for the key clinical questions were developed by the
Information Services Team with advice from the Short Clinical Guidelines
Technical Team. Structured clinical questions were developed using the PICO
(population, intervention, comparison, outcome) model and were translated
into search strategies using subject heading and free text terms. The
strategies were run across a number of databases with no date restrictions
imposed on the searches.
To identify economic evaluations the NHS Economic Evaluation Database

(NHS EED) and the Health Economic Evaluations Database (HEED) were
searched. Search filters to identify economic evaluations and quality of life
studies were used to interrogate bibliographic databases. There were no date
restrictions imposed on the searches.
In addition to the systematic literature searches, the Guideline Development

Group was asked to alert the Short Clinical Guidelines Technical Team to any
additional evidence, published, unpublished or in press, that met the inclusion
criteria.
The searches were undertaken between May and October 2008. Full details
of the systematic search, including the sources searched and the MEDLINE
strategies for each evidence review, are presented in appendix 6.4.
4.2.6 Reviewing the evidence

The aim of the clinical review was to systematically identify and synthesise
relevant evidence in order to answer the key clinical questions developed from
the guideline scope. The guideline recommendations were evidence based if

possible; if evidence was not available, informal consensus within the
Guideline Development Group was used. Future research needs were also
specified in research recommendations.
The papers chosen for inclusion were then critically appraised by the Short
Clinical Guidelines Technical Team for their methodological rigour against a
number of criteria that determine the validity of the results. These criteria
differed according to study type, and the level of evidence ascribed to them
was based on the checklists included in ‘The guidelines manual’ (2009).
The data were extracted to standard evidence table templates. The findings
were summarised by the Short Clinical Guidelines Technical Team into both a
series of evidence statements and an accompanying narrative summary.
4.2.7 Grading the evidence

Intervention studies
Studies that meet the minimum quality criteria were ascribed a level of
evidence to help the guideline developers and the eventual users of the
guideline understand the type of evidence on which the recommendations
have been based.
NICE uses elements of the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations

Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach for questions about
interventions in its clinical guidelines. The GRADE working group is
developing an approach for summarising the evidence for diagnostic tests and
strategies. In the absence of this system a narrative summary of the quality of
the evidence is used, based on the quality appraisal criteria from QUADAS
(Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy included in Systematic
Reviews). Numerical summaries and analyses are followed by short evidence
statements summarising what the evidence shows (more details can be found
in ‘The guidelines manual’ [2009]).
4.2.8 Evidence to recommendations

Recommendations were drafted after discussion of the clinical- and cost-
effectiveness evidence, including consideration of the quality of the available

evidence, and using the experience of Guideline Development Group
members. The 'linking evidence to recommendations' sections of the guideline
aim to reflect this decision-making process and provide transparency about
the development of the recommendations. The Guideline Development Group
was able to agree recommendations through informal consensus.
4.2.9 Health economics

An economic evaluation aims to integrate data on the benefits (ideally in terms
of quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]), harms and costs of alternative options.
An economic appraisal will consider not only whether a particular course of
action is clinically effective, but also whether it is cost effective (that is, value
for money). If a particular treatment strategy were found to yield little health
gain relative to the resources used, then it could be advantageous to redirect
resources to other activities that yield greater health gain.
A systematic review of the economic literature relating to the recognition and

assessment of coeliac disease was also conducted.
4.2.10 Consultation
The draft of the full guideline was available on the website for consultation
from 15 January to 12 February 2009, and registered stakeholders were
informed by NICE that the documents were available. Non-registered
stakeholders could view the guideline on the NICE website.
4.2.11 Other national guidance

None relevant.
4.2.12 Piloting, implementation and audit

It is beyond the scope of the work to pilot the contents of this guideline or
validate any approach to implementation. Implementation support tools for this
guideline will be available from the Implementation Team at NICE. The
guideline recommendations have been used to develop clinical audit criteria
for use in practice. Audit criteria are essential implementation tools for
monitoring the uptake and impact of guidelines and thus need to be clear and
straightforward for organisations and professionals to use. NICE develops

audit support for all its guidance programmes as part of its implementation
strategy.
4.2.13 Scheduled review of this guideline

Following the 4-week public consultation period the comments made by
stakeholders, peer reviewers and the Guideline Review Panel were collated
and presented anonymously for consideration by the Guideline Development
Group, responses and changes to the guideline were agreed by the Short
Clinical Guidelines Technical Team and the Guideline Development Group to
create the final version of the guideline.
This guideline will be considered for an update following the current process
(chapter 14 of ‘The guidelines manual’ [2009]).
5 Contributors
5.1 The Guideline Development Group

The Guideline Development Group is composed of relevant healthcare
professionals, patient representatives and NICE technical staff.
The members of the Guideline Development Group are listed below.
David Wray (Chair of GDG 1)

Professor of Oral Medicine
Peter Howdle (Chair of GDG 3 and 4)

Professor of Clinical Medicine
Adrian Thomas
Consultant Paediatric Gastroenterologist
Alison Lister
Patient/carer member
David Sanders
Consultant Gastroenterologist

John O'Malley
General Practitioner
Julian Walters
Consultant Gastroenterologist
Mohamed Abuzakouk
Consultant Immunologist
Norma McGough
Patient/carer member
Peter Macfarlane
Consultant Paediatrician
Sorrel Burden
Dietitian
5.1.1 The Short Clinical Guidelines Technical Team

The Short Clinical Guidelines Technical Team is responsible for this guideline
throughout its development. It is responsible for preparing information for the
Guideline Development Group, for drafting the guideline and for responding to
consultation comments. The following people, who are employees of NICE,
make up the technical team working on this guideline.
Fergus Macbeth (Chair of GDG 2)

Director, Centre for Clinical Practice
Tim Stokes
Associate Director, Centre for Clinical Practice
Beth Shaw
Technical Adviser
Roberta Richey
Technical Analyst

Ruth McAllister
Technical Analyst (Health Economics)
Michael Heath
Project Manager
Daniel Tuvey
Information Specialist
Nicole Elliott
Guidelines Commissioning Manager
Emma Banks
Guidelines Coordinator
5.1.2 Guideline Review Panel

Dr John Hyslop – Acting Chair
Consultant Radiologist, Royal Cornwall Hospital NHS Trust
Dr Graham Archard
General Practitioner, Dorset
Ms Karen Cowley
Practice Development Nurse, York
Dr David Gillen
Medical Director, Wyeth Pharmaceutical
Ms Catherine Arkley
Lay member
5.1.3 List of stakeholders

Addisons Disease Self-Help Group
Association for Clinical Biochemistry
Association of the British Pharmaceuticals Industry (ABPI)
Barnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

Barnsley PCT
Bournemouth and Poole PCT
British Dietetic Association
British Geriatrics Society
British National Formulary (BNF)
British Nuclear Medicine Society
British Society of Gastroenterology
British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (BSGAR)
British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition

(BSPGHAN)
BUPA
Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Addenbrookes)
Care Quality Commission (CQC)
Cheshire PCT
Coeliac UK
College of Emergency Medicine
Commission for Social Care Inspection
Connecting for Health
Department for Communities and Local Government
Department of Health
Department of Health, Social Security and Public Safety of Northern Ireland
DHSSPSNI

Diabetes UK
Faculty of Public Health
Glutafin
Guys and St Thomas NHS Trust
Harrogate and District NHS Foundation Trust
Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust
Infant and Dietetic Foods Association
Institute of Biomedical Science
Leeds PCT
Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
Luton & Dunstable Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Manchester Royal Infirmary
Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)
Milton Keynes PCT
National Osteoporosis Society
National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA)
National Public Health Service − Wales
National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse
NCCHTA
NHS Bedfordshire
NHS Clinical Knowledge Summaries Service (SCHIN)

NHS Direct
NHS Kirklees
NHS Knowsley
NHS Plus
NHS Purchasing & Supply Agency
NHS Quality Improvement Scotland
NHS Sefton
NHS Sheffield
North Yorkshire and York PCT
Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
PERIGON Healthcare Ltd
Primary Care Society for Gastroenterology (PCSG)
Royal College of General Practitioners
Royal College of Nursing
Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health
Royal College of Pathologists
Royal College of Physicians London
Royal College of Radiologists
Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust
Royal Society of Medicine
SACAR

Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN)
Sedgefield PCT
Sheffield PCT
Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Shire Plc
Shrewsbury & Telford Hospital NHS Trust
Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE)
South Asian Health Foundation
South Devon Acute Trust
Teva UK Limited
United Kingdom Clinical Pharmacy Association (UKCPA)
University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
University of Oxford
Wellfoods Ltd
Welsh Assembly Government
Welsh Scientific Advisory Committee (WSAC)
Western Cheshire Primary Care Trust
Western Health and Social Care Trust
York NHS Foundation Trust

5.2 Declarations
5.2.1 Authorship and citation

Authorship of this full guideline document is attributed to the NICE Short
Clinical Guidelines Technical Team and members of the Guideline
Development Group under group authorship.
The guideline should be cited as:
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2009) Coeliac

disease: recognition and assessment of coeliac disease. London:
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Available from:
www.nice.org.uk/CG86
5.2.2 Declarations of interest

A full list of all declarations of interest made by this Guideline Development
Group is available on the NICE website (www.nice.org.uk).
Please note the appendices are available as separate files.

02 Coeliac Disease

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

02 Coeliac Disease

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

02 Coeliac Disease

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Issue date: May 2009

NICE clinical guideline 86

For printed copies of the quick reference guide or ‘Understanding NICE

Implementation of this guidance is the responsibility of local commissioners

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

The appendices are available as separate files.

NICE clinical guideline 86 Coeliac disease 3

Implementation of this guidance is the responsibility of local commissioners

NICE clinical guideline 86 Coeliac disease 4

To improve the recognition of coeliac disease and to increase the number of

The Guideline Development Group (GDG) comprised experts in both adult

The GDG considered systematically identified and reviewed evidence

NICE clinical guideline 86 Coeliac disease 5

Professor Peter D Howdle

NICE clinical guideline 86 Coeliac disease 6

If the patient is under 16, healthcare professionals should follow guidelines in

Good communication between healthcare professionals and patients is

Care of young people in transition between paediatric and adult services

NICE clinical guideline 86 Coeliac disease 7

Adult and paediatric healthcare teams should work jointly to provide

NICE clinical guideline 86 Coeliac disease 8

• chronic or intermittent diarrhoea

• any of the following conditions:

• first-degree relatives (parents, siblings or children) with coeliac

NICE clinical guideline 86 Coeliac disease 9

Dietary considerations before testing for coeliac disease

NICE clinical guideline 86 Coeliac disease 10

1.1.8 If a person is reluctant or unable to reintroduce gluten into their diet

• refer them to a gastrointestinal specialist and

Other information before serological testing

• what coeliac disease is

NICE clinical guideline 86 Coeliac disease 11

• continuing ill health

1.1.13 Do not use immunoglobulin G (IgG) or immunoglobulin A (IgA)

1.1.14 Do not use of self-tests and/or point-of-care tests for coeliac

1.1.15 When clinicians request serology, laboratories should:

• use IgA tissue transglutaminase (tTGA) as the first choice test

NICE clinical guideline 86 Coeliac disease 12

After serological testing

NICE clinical guideline 86 Coeliac disease 13

Person is unlikely to need

Yes Refer them to a

Offer serological testing if the person has any of the

– the implications of a negative test (that coeliac disease is unlikely but it

• Inform people (and their parents or carers as appropriate) that a delayed

– continuing ill health

– long-term complications, including osteoporosis and increased fracture risk,

– growth failure, delayed puberty and dental problems (in children).

Unlikely to have coeliac

No need to repeat tests

Positive result Negative result

Box B. Consider offering serological testing to children and adults with

• Addison's disease • microscopic colitis

1.3.1 Coeliac disease: recognition and assessment

Coeliac disease has traditionally been associated with mainly gastrointestinal

Coeliac disease is considered to be more prevalent in people with

Nice clinical guideline 86 Coeliac disease 18

This guideline uses the best available clinical-effectiveness and cost-

1.3.2 The NICE short clinical guideline programme